San Francisco Jury Verdict: Guilty of Drugging, Battery & Domestic Abuse

After deliberating over the Presidents Day Weekend, the jury ruled on the causes of action before it including battery, domestic abuse, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and domestic violence under California Civil Code Section 1708.6.

Battery:

• Did the defendant touch the plaintiff or cause plaintiff to be touched with the intent to harm or offend him? YES
• Did the plaintiff consent to be touched? NO
• Was the plaintiff harmed or offended by the defendant's conduct? YES
• Would a reasonable person in plaintiff's situation have been offended by the touching? YES
• Did the defendant reasonably believe plaintiff was going to harm her? NO

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress:

• Was the defendant exercising legal rights or protecting economic interests? NO
• Was the defendant's conduct outrageous? YES
• Did the defendant intend to cause emotional distress or act with reckless disregard? YES
• Did the plaintiff suffer severe emotional distress? YES
• Was the defendant's conduct a substantial factor in causing the distress? YES

Domestic Violence (Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.6):

• Did the defendant abuse the plaintiff by inflicting injury upon him? YES
• Was the defendant a former spouse, cohabitant, or in a dating relationship with plaintiff? YES
• Was the plaintiff damaged by the defendant's conduct? YES
• Did the defendant reasonably believe plaintiff was going to harm her? NO

Court Note: Judge Garrett L. Wong reduced the original punitive damages award of $50,000 to $0 on April 15, 2022, under Code of Civil Procedure section 629(a) (judgment notwithstanding the verdict for punitive damages only).

Case: Russell v. Walsh, Case No. CGC-18-570137

Court: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, Department 504

Judge: Hon. Garrett L. Wong

Plaintiff: Stephen Russell, represented by Brian D. Waller of Peckar & Abramson, P.C.

Defendant: Tara Walsh, appearing in propria persona (self-represented)

Verdict Date: February 22, 2022

Judgment Date: August 11, 2022 (amended)

The original complaint, filed September 26, 2018, included four causes of action:

• Battery
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Domestic Violence under California Civil Code Section 1708.6
• California Drug Dealer Liability Act (Health & Safety Code Sections 11700 et seq.)

Defendant's Cross-Complaint: The mother's cross-complaint against the father was dismissed with prejudice on April 14, 2021.

Despite this comprehensive jury verdict establishing that the mother had drugged and abused the father — the very facts that underlay the custody dispute in Westchester — the Westchester Family Court initially gave credence to the mother's version of events. The New York Courts declined to comment on the ruling or acknowledge its implications for the custody proceedings occurring simultaneously in New York.

The verdict came at a critical moment: in February 2022, while the mother was claiming in Westchester that the father was dangerous and unfit, a California jury found that she was the one who had drugged and abused the father. This verdict should have fundamentally altered the Westchester court's analysis of the custody dispute.