Jacob Berlinghoff v. Shasta County, Stephanie B. Lloyd
Published: Jun. 28, 2005 | Result Date: Apr. 11, 2005 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 149219 Verdict – $30,000
Facts
In 1993, Jacob Berlinghoff, 15, was investigated by the Shasta County Sheriff's Department for improperly touching his five-year-old nephew, Brent. Belinghoff denied the allegations and the investigation was closed with no arrest. The investigating officer concluded in his report, however, that the victim was molested by Berlinghoff. The child's mother filed a claim with the Shasta County Victim/Witness Program. In 2003, a custody dispute arose involving stepchildren who lived with Brent. The Shasta County Victim/Witness Program wrote a letter stating that Berlinghoff had molested Brent in 1993. The letter was filed in a family law case in Tehama County Superior Court. Berlinghoff sued Shasta County and Stephanie Lloyd, an advocate in the Victim/Witness Program. He claimed common law privacy, defamation and negligence. Berlinghoff claimed that the letter was false and defamatory and the underlying allegation was untrue. He also claimed his constitutional right of privacy was violated because he was a minor at the time of the accusation. The defamation claim was dismissed. The judge found that judicial privilege applied because the letter was given to the mother of the alleged victim to be later filed in the family law case. The common law privacy and negligence claims were also dismissed. The trial only allowed a constitutional invasion of privacy cause of action. The defense contended that the allegation was true and, therefore, non-defamatory. The defense also contended that at the time the letter was written, the Victim/Witness Program was not aware that the plaintiff was a minor when the accusation was made.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiff demanded $99,000 (C.C.P. Section 998) and a retraction of the allegedly defamatory statement. He also demanded that the file be sealed.
Damages
The plaintiff claimed that he suffered from emotional distress, humiliation and embarrassment as a result of the letter. He also claimed that the letter may hurt his reputation as a filmmaker.
Result
The jury awarded the plaintiff $30,000 for non-economic damages.
Deliberation
2.5 hours
Poll
12-0 (liability), 9-3 (damages)
Length
four days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390