Facts

Debra Von Trapp approached Russell Garcia, a firefighter for the Santa Ana Fire Dept., at a coffee shop. She asked him about the fire department as they waited for their coffees. About a month later, Von Trapp came to the fire station. She asked Garcia about his relationship with his girl friend, Ann, whom she had seen at the coffee shop. She gave Garcia her phone number, and asked him to call her with information about the department and possible ride-alongs in the fire truck.

About two weeks later, Von Trapp told Garcia that she had a gun and a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Later, at a deposition, Von Trapp admitted that she did not have a concealed weapons permit. Von Trapp Told Garcia that she knew where his wife Teresa and his children lived, and that she knew where Ann lived as well. She recited their addresses. She said that she knew how to get in and out of secure places, and evade any lock or security system. She ordered Garcia to do anything she said, and to be nice to her, or his family would be harmed. Garcia was frightened and spoke to another fire fighter, John Muir. Muir said he had heard Von Trapp make representations that she worked for the CIA, FBI and Dept. of Defense. Less than a week later, Von Trapp came to the fire station and refused to leave at curfew. Garcia did not force her to leave because of her prior threats. For the next month, Von Trapp would come by the station uninvited and unannounced, and then refuse to leave. She also would reiterate her prior threats. Von Trapp and Garcia had several other encounters, and eventually had sexual relations. Von Trapp was present when Garcia and his squad were invited to attend a September 11 memorial service. Garcia and his squad tried to tell her that she was not welcome, but were late arriving at the service because of a call. When they arrived, they saw Von Trapp in departmental regalia, with a squad of fire fighters. She represented herself as a member of the squad and received accolades from supporters after the service. Shortly thereafter, Garcia found plaintiff in Ann's living room. Plaintiff demanded that Garcia and Ann meet her at a restaurant or "who knows what I will do to your family." Von Trapp also told Ann that she should have a roommate, and Ann allowed Von Trapp to move in. Von Trapp threatened to report a false rape allegation against Garcia if Garcia did not move in with her, according to Ann. Ann made Von Trapp move out after only one night. For the next month, Von Trapp continued to harass Garcia. She followed him at the library when he was there with his children, and almost ran him over in her car. She demanded $5,000 from him because she claimed their sexual relationship caused her to lose wages. She later came to the station to demand $9,000, but Garcia was not there. On November 30, Von Trapp filed a complaint against Garcia, alleging sexual assault. She filed a rape complaint on December 4. Her claims were based on an alleged incident that took place on or about August 30.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff alleged that defendant had grabbed her, forcibly kissed her, and shoved his hand down her pants, some time around August 30 or 31. She claimed that she left and went home, but that he called her two hours later, and asked her to come back to the station to talk. Upon her return, they went to an abandoned mobile home behind the station. She contended that defendant raped her. When a fire alarm sounded, she claimed that he told her "not to move," and when he returned, the sexual activity resumed. They were again interrupted by another alarm, and plaintiff claimed she was again instructed not to leave. She further contended that she was afraid to call the police because she had been assaulted by an officer the year before, and was afraid that same officer would respond to her call. Again, after defendant returned, the sexual activity continued. Eventually, plaintiff went home. About a week later, defendant came to her hotel room and they again had sexual relations. Plaintiff denied that defendant had spent the night. At trial, plaintiff's expert testified that she believed plaintiff had been raped. She diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from emotional distress from litigation through against plaintiff's mother, a prior rape by a police officer, an allegation that a landlord had pushed plaintiff down a flight of stairs, and that plaintiff was being evicted. However, plaintiff's expert concluded that the true source of plaintiff's emotional distress was the rape by defendant.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant denied the alleged assault on August 30 or 31 had taken place. He admitted to going to the mobile home with plaintiff, but claimed that she had insisted on having sex. He refused, but stated that she reminded him of her threats, and so he complied. He claimed that plaintiff coerced him into coming to her hotel, and told him to be prepared to spend the night. She threatened to go to his family's home if he did not comply. He admitted going to the hotel and having sex with plaintiff. He introduced expert testimony that authenticated emails sent by plaintiff that tended to confirm defendant's version of events, and impeached plaintiff's version. He also introduced evidence that plaintiff was psychologically delusional. His defense expert reached this conclusion after interviewing plaintiff's estranged mother and sister, and several hours of psychological testing on plaintiff. The expert also reviewed records of 15 prior incidents where plaintiff had alleged two prior rapes, and other conflicts with landlords, other litigation, and claims against three cities. Defendant also pointed out that the alleged rape had occurred some six months before plaintiff sought treatment.

Specials in Evidence

Plaintiff claimed her doctor had taken a "lien" for her services, totaling $4,500.

Damages

Plaintiff sought $1 million in damages.

Injuries

Plaintiff claimed emotional distress. She underwent a year and a half of treatment, but after discovery of her doctor's records, supposedly in to protect subsequent litigation, she only claimed 366 days of distress.

Result

The jury found for the defendant.

Other Information

Plaintiff could not be identified as a vexatious litigant because she had managed to settle most of the claims she was involved with, and had never had an adverse jury verdict.

Deliberation

two hours

Poll

12-0

Length

18 days