Case Background
According to the complaint, filed on May 10, 2023, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, the dispute originated from a confrontation on or about January 25, 2023, at a rental property in Lucerne Valley, California. Shields and her husband were in their rental unit when Caffey arrived unannounced to discuss their rental agreement and related fees.
Cause
The complaint alleged that Caffey suddenly and without warning physically assaulted Shields, causing injury and damages. It stated that Caffey approached with the intent to cause harmful contact, then leaned forward, came within inches of Shields, and threatened to grab her in a loud, bellicose manner.
Believing that Caffey would touch her, Shields tried to avoid contact and said she never consented to being touched.
The complaint also alleged that Shields did not batter or attempt to batter Caffey. It described Caffey's conduct as malicious, oppressive, and despicable. It further alleged that Caffey acted with willful and conscious disregard for Shields' rights and safety. The complaint cited California Civil Code section 3294 as the basis for punitive damages.
Injury
The complaint alleged that Shields suffered physical injuries from the alleged assault, along with psychological harm. It stated that Caffey's conduct was a substantial factor in Shields' fear for her safety and her sense of personal dignity. It described her emotional distress as intense, enduring mental suffering and anguish that no reasonable person in a civilized society should be expected to endure. Shields also alleged that she incurred medical bills, sustained a disability, and retained an attorney to pursue the case.
Damages Sought
Shields requested several forms of compensation in her filing:
General Damages: For her pain, suffering, and emotional distress.
Special Damages: To cover medical bills and other financial losses.
Punitive Damages: To punish Caffey for malicious conduct and deter similar future behavior.
Costs and Prejudgment Interest: Court costs, prejudgment interest, and any other relief the court deemed proper.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Christina Shields
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Igor Fradkin, Esq., of Downtown L.A. Law Group, filed the complaint in May 2023. A Notice of Change of Handling Attorney, filed on January 2, 2026, reassigned the matter to Sajdah Golde, Esq., also of Downtown L.A. Law Group, who represented Shields through trial.
Defendant(s): Deanie Caffey
Counsel for Defendant(s): Deanie Caffey appeared pro se.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
Shields' legal team asserted four causes of action: assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence.
On the assault claim, the complaint alleged that Caffey acted with intent to cause harmful contact. The battery claim alleged that Caffey touched Shields in a manner that would have offended a reasonable person. The emotional distress claim argued that Caffey's conduct was outrageous and exceeded the bounds tolerated in a civilized community.
Defense
Representing herself, Caffey filed a general denial under California Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30. She argued that the complaint failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. She also argued that she performed all duties required under the parties' agreement.
Her answer asserted seven affirmative defenses, including waiver, estoppel, unclean hands, laches, the statute of frauds under California Civil Code sections 1624(b) through (d), an alleged breach of contract by Shields, and a right to an offset for damages she claimed resulted from Shields' conduct.
Caffey asked the court to dismiss the complaint, award costs, and grant any other relief it deemed just.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded in April 2026 in the San Bernardino District of the Superior Court of California.
The jury found in favor of Caffey on all counts:
Negligence: The jury found Caffey was not negligent.
Battery: Jurors found in favor of Caffey and against Shields on the battery claim.
Emotional Distress: The jury ruled in favor of Caffey and against Shields on the emotional distress claim.
The presiding juror signed the final verdict forms on April 16, 2026. The court entered judgment for Caffey on May 27, 2026.
Court documents are available upon request at [email protected]
Editor's Correction
An earlier version of this article mistakenly and incorrectly reported a verdict for the plaintiff in this case. The error is deeply regretted.
