--- title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem" meta: "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem" --- Jury Verdict Categories ### **Jury Verdict Articles** Explore jury verdict articles and case studies. ## **Search** ## **Filters** [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/ANE_BP1B_DOE.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement) [**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-) April 1, 2026 ###### [Juvenile Detention Sexual Abuse Lawsuit and Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/juvenile-detention-sexual-abuse-lawsuit-and-settlement) This litigation involved nineteen women, appearing as Jane Does, who alleged a harrowing history of systemic sexual abuse while they were minors in the custody of Los Angeles County juvenile detention facilities. The plaintiffs identified several "camps," including Camp Joseph Scott and Camp Kenyon Scudder, as the sites where Deputy Probation Officers leveraged their absolute authority to commit acts of rape, sexual assault, and harassment. The lawsuit, filed following the passage of California’s Assembly Bill 218, accused the County of "Negligent Supervision" and "Constructive Fraud," asserting that officials had ignored the predatory behavior of staff members for years. While the County initially filed a general denial and raised various legal defenses, the parties ultimately avoided a trial by reaching a full settlement in October 2025. This case highlights the ongoing legal reckoning regarding the safety and oversight of vulnerable youths within governmental correctional institutions. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/A_R_MINOR1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/miami-teen-assault-lawsuit-ends-in-defense-verdict) [**Tort -General**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/tort-general) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-) December 29, 2025 ###### [Miami Teen Assault Lawsuit Ends in Defense Verdict](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/miami-teen-assault-lawsuit-ends-in-defense-verdict) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/miami-teen-assault-lawsuit-ends-in-defense-verdict) In A.R. (Minor) et al. vs. M.P. (Minor) et al., the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County examined three serious intentional tort claims—simple battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress—brought by A.R. through her mother, Elida Villaroel, against fellow minor M.P. The lawsuit centered on allegations stemming from a December 2022 gathering at a Coral Gables High School friend’s apartment clubhouse. The Plaintiffs alleged non-consensual touching, penetration, and emotionally damaging conduct. They sought damages exceeding $30,000 and reserved the right to pursue punitive damages. The defense denied all allegations, arguing lack of intent, insufficient proof of outrageous conduct, and asserting affirmative defenses such as unclean hands. On May 30, 2025, the jury found in favor of the Defendant on all three counts. With no liability established, the jury did not reach the damages phase, resulting in a complete defense verdict and no monetary recovery for the Plaintiffs. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Dababneh1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/jury-awards-2m-in-dababneh-v-doja-sexual-harassment-case) [**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-) December 23, 2025 ###### [Jury Awards $2M in Dababneh v. Doja Sexual Harassment Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/jury-awards-2m-in-dababneh-v-doja-sexual-harassment-case) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/jury-awards-2m-in-dababneh-v-doja-sexual-harassment-case) In Dababneh v. Doja, Inc. et al, the plaintiff, Tania Dababneh, filed suit against her former employers in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County, alleging severe workplace misconduct. Ms. Dababneh claimed she was subjected to sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and a hostile work environment, which culminated in her wrongful termination in violation of public policy. On November 14, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The jury found Doja, Inc. liable for discrimination, harassment, and wrongful termination, and determined that individual defendant Ayad Jaber contributed to the hostile work environment. The jury awarded Ms. Dababneh $300,000 in past noneconomic damages and $800,000 in future noneconomic damages. Additionally, finding that Doja, Inc. acted with malice, oppression, or fraud, the jury assessed $900,000 in punitive damages against the corporation. The total judgment amounted to $2,000,000. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/la-school-district-assault-case-675k-settlement) [**Negligence**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/negligence) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-) October 17, 2025 ###### [LA School District Assault Case: $675K Settlement](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/la-school-district-assault-case-675k-settlement) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/la-school-district-assault-case-675k-settlement) LL John Doe MB sued the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for childhood sexual assault by an employee and negligent supervision. The Plaintiff alleged severe, lasting emotional and physical injuries. The School District denied all allegations, citing governmental immunity. The matter was resolved before trial, with the Defendant agreeing to a settlement of $675,000. [![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/prosecutor-miller-wins-3m-verdict-against-oc-da-spitzer) [**Labor and Employment Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/labor-and-employment-law) [**Sexual Harassment **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-) October 13, 2025 ###### [Prosecutor Miller Wins $3M Verdict Against OC DA Spitzer](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/prosecutor-miller-wins-3m-verdict-against-oc-da-spitzer) [](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/sexual-harassment-/jury-verdict/prosecutor-miller-wins-3m-verdict-against-oc-da-spitzer) After 25 years of service, Senior Assistant District Attorney Tracy Miller filed a landmark lawsuit against the County of Orange, District Attorney Todd Spitzer, and Chief Assistant DA Shawn Nelson. Miller alleged the two top officials intentionally created a hostile work environment and subjected her to retaliation after she defended junior female colleagues who had reported sexual harassment by a close associate of Spitzer. Miller claimed this systematic campaign of humiliation and marginalization forced her into early retirement—a constructive termination. The San Diego jury ultimately sided with Miller, holding the defendants liable and awarding a total verdict of $3.025 million, including $25,000 in punitive damages personally paid by Todd Spitzer.