San Francisco Jury Finds Walsh Guilty of Drugging, Domestic Abuse & Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm
Four years of denials and delay culminated in a five-day trial in San Francisco the week of February 14, 2022. After deliberating over the Presidents Day Weekend, the jury ruled on the causes of action before it including battery, domestic abuse and more.
Did Tara Walsh "Drug" Stephen Russell repeatedly and commit "Battery?" YES
Did Tara Walsh commit "Domestic Abuse" against Mr. Russell? YES
Was Tara Walsh's conduct "Outrageous?" YES
The judgment included loss, suffering and punitive damages totaling around $400,000 though the number could go higher. Still pending from the Court was a separate finding regarding Walsh's attempts to avoid a mental health evaluation and the filing of false claims against Mr. Russell. Ms. Walsh's counter claims were dismissed "with prejudice."
The New York Courts declined to comment on the ruling, or the kidnapping of Mr. Russell's daughter from San Francisco. While the trial of Ms. Walsh was pending, the Westchester Court elected to accept Walsh's version of events despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
"We are very pleased with the verdict and expect Judge Schauer and the Westchester Court to take judicial notice of the ruling. The facts in this case have always been very clear for those willing to look. A judgment like this doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It's never too late to do the right thing."
The Judgment
The case, Russell v. Walsh, Case No. CGC-18-570137, came before Department 504 of the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, the Hon. Garrett L. Wong presiding. Plaintiff Stephen Russell appeared through attorney Brian D. Waller of Peckar & Abramson, P.C. Defendant Tara Walsh appeared in pro per.
The jury returned its verdict finding that plaintiff Stephen Russell was entitled to judgment against defendant Tara Walsh consisting of:
- Past economic loss: $185,000.00
- Past noneconomic loss (physical pain/mental suffering): $90,000.00
- Punitive damages: $50,000.00
- Total: $325,000.00
The original complaint filed on September 26, 2018 included four causes of action: Battery, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Domestic Violence under California Civil Code Section 1708.6, and the California Drug Dealer Liability Act under Health & Safety Code Sections 11700 et seq.
Filed: Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco — August 11, 2022
Filed: Westchester County Clerk 10/05/2022 — Index No. 55523/2023 — Received NYSCEF: 01/13/2023
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STEPHEN RUSSELL, an individual, Plaintiff, vs. TARA WALSH, an individual; and DOES 1 to 20, Defendants.
Case No. CGC-18-570137
SECOND AMENDED JUDGMENT ON JURY VERDICT
Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant Stephen Russell's ("Russell") main action against Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tara Walsh, in pro per ("Walsh"), came on regularly for trial on February 16, 2022, in Department 504 of the Superior Court, the Hon. Garrett L. Wong presiding; Russell, appearing by attorney Brian D. Waller, Peckar & Abramson, P.C.; and Walsh appearing in propria persona.
A jury of persons was regularly impaneled and sworn. Witnesses were sworn and testified. After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury was duly instructed by the Court and the cause was submitted to the jury. The jury deliberated and thereafter returned into court with its verdict as follows:
Russell is entitled to judgment against Walsh in the amount of $325,000.00, consisting of past economic loss in the amount of $185,000.00, past noneconomic loss, including physical pain/mental suffering in the amount of $90,000.00, and punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00.
On April 15, 2022, the Court granted Walsh on her motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 629(a), a partial JNOV in Walsh's favor regarding the $50,000.00 award of punitive damages and reduced the verdict by that amount.
On April 15, 2022, the Court denied Walsh's motion to strike costs and awarded Russell, as prevailing party, an award of costs in the amount of $6,607.82 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 et seq.
Upon further consideration, the Court revises the award of costs from $6,607.82 to $5,275.87 because expenses of $1,331.95 that were attributed to a court reporter's Real Time feed are not allowable by statute.
It appearing by reason of said verdict that: Russell is entitled to judgment against Walsh on Russell's main action; and
Walsh's Cross-Complaint against Russell was dismissed, with prejudice, on April 14, 2021.
On July 7, 2022, the Court granted Russell's motion for judgment of dismissal granting costs on Walsh's Cross-Complaint and awarded Russell, as prevailing party, an award of $51,804.87 under Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 et seq.
It appearing by reason of said dismissal of Walsh's Cross-Complaint that: Russell is entitled to judgment against Walsh on Walsh's Cross-Complaint;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that said Plaintiff/Cross-defendant Stephen Russell have and recover from said Defendant/Cross-Complainant Tara Walsh the sum of $275,000.00, together with costs and disbursements in the amount of $5,275.87 on Russell's main action and costs and disbursements in the amount of $51,804.87 on Walsh's Cross-Complaint, for a total judgment amount of $332,080.74, with interest thereon at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from the date of the entry of this judgment until paid.
Dated: August 11, 2022
Garrett L. Wong
Judge of the Superior Court
Filed: San Francisco County Superior Court — February 22, 2022
Case No. CGC-18-570137 — Stephen Russell, Plaintiff v. Tara Walsh, Defendants
VF-1301 Battery — Self-Defense/Defense of Others at Issue
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did Tara Walsh touch Stephen Russell or cause Stephen Russell to be touched with the intent to harm or offend him?
✓ Yes
2. Did Stephen Russell consent to be touched?
✓ No
3. Was Stephen Russell harmed or offended by Tara Walsh's conduct?
✓ Yes
4. Would a reasonable person in Stephen Russell's situation have been offended by the touching?
✓ Yes
5. Did Tara Walsh reasonably believe that Stephen Russell was going to harm her?
✓ No
7. What are Stephen Russell's damages?
Signed: Presiding Juror — Dated: 02/22/2022
VF-1601 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress — Affirmative Defense — Privileged Conduct
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Was Tara Walsh exercising her legal rights or protecting her economic interests?
✓ No
[If answer to question 1 is no, skip questions 2 and 3 and answer question 4.]
4. Was Tara Walsh's conduct outrageous?
✓ Yes
5. Did Tara Walsh intend to cause Stephen Russell emotional distress?
or
Did Tara Walsh act with reckless disregard of the probability that Stephen Russell would suffer emotional distress as a result of her conduct?
✓ Yes
6. Did Stephen Russell suffer severe emotional distress?
✓ Yes
7. Was Tara Walsh's conduct a substantial factor in causing Stephen Russell's severe emotional distress?
✓ Yes
8. What are Stephen Russell's damages?
Signed: Presiding Juror — Dated: 02/22/2022
VF-3900 Punitive Damages
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did Tara Walsh engage in the conduct with malice, oppression, or fraud?
✓ Yes
2. What amount of punitive damages, if any, do you award Stephen Russell?
$50,000
Signed: Presiding Juror — Dated: 02/22/2022
VF — Domestic Violence in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.6
We answer the questions submitted to us as follows:
1. Did Tara Walsh abuse Stephen Russell by inflicting injury upon him?
✓ Yes
2. Is Tara Walsh a former spouse or former cohabitant of Stephen Russell, or was she in a dating relationship with Stephen Russell, or does she have a child with Stephen Russell?
✓ Yes
3. Was Stephen Russell damaged by Tara Walsh's conduct?
✓ Yes
4. Did Tara Walsh reasonably believe that Stephen Russell was going to harm her?
✓ No
[If answer to question 4 is no, skip question 5.]
6. What are Stephen Russell's damages?
Signed: Presiding Juror — Dated: 02/22/2022
VF-5001 General Verdict Form — Single Plaintiff — Single Defendant — Multiple Cause of Action
For each claim, select one of the two options listed.
On Stephen Russell's claim for battery,
✓ we find in favor of Stephen Russell and against Tara Walsh.
On Stephen Russell's claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress,
✓ we find in favor of Stephen Russell and against Tara Walsh.
On Stephen Russell's claim for Domestic Violence in Violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1708.6,
✓ we find in favor of Stephen Russell and against Tara Walsh.
We award Stephen Russell the following damages: $325,000
Signed: Presiding Juror — Dated: 02/22/2022