OT Matt Araiza - Accused Of Rape

[Heatmiser]

Chain, and I realize that the victim’s attorney can spin this to fit the need, the attorney for the victim says that she already declined an offered financial settlement and that in her civil case she is not seeking financial damages but rather wants to bring this to light so that others don’t suffer her fate. He was pretty fired up about Araiza’s attorney accusing her of being a gold digger. So a conscious effort is being made not to make this about money.

What do you make of that? Perhaps the settlement offer was not rich enough? And I am not experienced in this like you, so if a civil case is filed not seeking financial damages, can the plaintiff be awarded money regardless? Or is the victim filing the civil suit because the police have been so slow to complete the investigation and the motivation is putting Araiza in jail? It sure seems like they are taking a long time. The victim’s attorney has done a terrific job turning public opinion against Araiza (and the Bills, too)

I appreciate having your knowledge on this.

Duck - SDSU was asked by law enforcement to specifically stand down and not conduct an investigation according to reports I read.
Ghost of Q - I think you mean statutory rape

TG

[Boltjolt]

I missed all of that. I blame TPB for not keeping me better informed. Oh well this nasty ocean and beach outside my window helps sooth all that ails. lol

I didnt know that either so i either missed it or it was fron another Chargers related site.

[Boltjolt]

He acknowledged having sex with her by telling her to get tested for chlamydia. She was a minor at the time, so having sex with her is automatically statutory rape.

So I would agree that we have basis for understanding that he's guilty of significant charges, even if EVERYTHING the suit alleges isn't 100% accurate.

Not saying he doesn't deserve his day in court, because he *does*. But we *do* know, already, that he's guilty of statutory rape.

MAYBE he's guilty of nothing else. We'll see.

I forget the age of consent in CA.

Here in NV it's 16 so he wouldn't be automatically in trouble.

Just saying, I'm not defending it at all.

[Guest]

The incident was reported last October, immediately after it happened. So please stop with this nonsense that she’s going after his money.

She filed a civil complaint for damages. She literally is going after his money. This what she is seeking (taken straight from her civil complaint for damages):

REQUEST FOR RELIEF



She is not seeking specific performance, injunctive relief or some other nonmonetary remedy. She is specifically seeking money in her complaint.

[Guest]

this has nothing to do with being a lawyer, it’s just common sense. A guy with Bundy’s moral compass would not have been a benefit to society no matter how brilliant. I understand your reasoning where a defendant may have done one thing that set him on the wrong path. But that’s not Bundy or any serial killer. He was a monster and academic performance doesn’t change that nor make him someone worthy of any kind of praise

The judge was not praising Bundy. He was saying that he made the wrong choice in life that led him to getting sentenced to the death penalty and that that was tragic (multiple lives lost and Bundy being sentenced to the death penalty). To use your terminology, had Bundy not had the moral compass that he had (obviously assumed by the judge in his comments about Bundy's hypothetical alternate reality), he might have made a fine attorney that he would have been pleased to see appear before him.

Like I said before, you are simply interpreting what the judge meant in a very unfair fashion to the judge when what he meant is actually the matter that is common sense. The judge was not saying that serial killer Ted Bundy should have been a lawyer that appeared before him. He was saying that a good person with Bundy's abilities might have made a fine lawyer, but that Bundy went down the wrong path.

The point of the comment is not that Bundy had abilities. It is that he went down the wrong path, which ties in with his being sentenced to the death penalty.

As I stated, I see the judge's comments as being absolutely routine in making a fairly obvious point.

[Guest]

Chain, and I realize that the victim’s attorney can spin this to fit the need, the attorney for the victim says that she already declined an offered financial settlement and that in her civil case she is not seeking financial damages but rather wants to bring this to light so that others don’t suffer her fate. He was pretty fired up about Araiza’s attorney accusing her of being a gold digger. So a conscious effort is being made not to make this about money.

What do you make of that? Perhaps the settlement offer was not rich enough? And I am not experienced in this like you, so if a civil case is filed not seeking financial damages, can the plaintiff be awarded money regardless? Or is the victim filing the civil suit because the police have been so slow to complete the investigation and the motivation is putting Araiza in jail? It sure seems like they are taking a long time. The victim’s attorney has done a terrific job turning public opinion against Araiza (and the Bills, too)

I appreciate having your knowledge on this.

Duck - SDSU was asked by law enforcement to specifically stand down and not conduct an investigation according to reports I read.
Ghost of Q - I think you mean statutory rape

TG

Heatmeister, of course the plaintiff's attorney does not want his client portrayed as a gold digger. Whether her claims are true or false, the attorney would have the same reaction. The opinion that his client is a gold digger would potentially be harmful to the case if that view found its way to the jury.

And yes, settlement offers get rejected all the time as being unsatisfactory in some way to the rejecting party. If it was rejected, I do think it was because plaintiff's counsel advised the plaintiff that she could probably get more in a later offer.

The plaintiff's case is seeking money damages. There seems to be some confusion about that point on this forum, but there is none in my legally trained view since the OP was good enough to post a link to the complaint.

If you look at post #112, the part in red is what the plaintiff is seeking from Araiza. Special damages are economic damages such medical expenses or lost wages, for example. General damages are noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering damages. Obviously, special damages are more easily determined than general damages as there is no formula for general damages. But at the end of the day they are both categories of money damages.

Moreover, punitive damages, which are also being sought (very reasonably so if the allegations are true), are money damages awarded to a plaintiff for the purpose of punishing the conduct of the defendant for knowingly acting with malice, oppression, and/or in conscious disregard of the rights of another. In Araiza's case, the theory is that Araiza wanted to get his rocks off and did not care at all about what harm might come to the young lady that he allegedly raped when he raped her and even apparently did so while having an STD.

The notion that a civil lawsuit that specifically seeks money damages is not seeking money damages is ridiculous and should cause the attorney to lose credibility, making it a questionable statement to make if that was what was actually said. Judging from the attorney's bar number only, the attorney has been practicing in California since about the late 1990s, so the attorney is experienced.

Even if the plaintiff wanted to pursue her action "for the principle of the matter", the attorney is involved in the practice of law for a living and is likely only getting paid in one of two ways--either he is charging the plaintiff hourly, not likely unless the plaintiff or her family has money to pay as they go, or he is taking the case on a contingent fee basis, which means that he only gets paid if there is a settlement or judgment in plaintiff's favor. That latter arrangement is far more likely in a case like this one involving one or more defendants that have the apparent money to pay, but the reality is that we do not know the fee arrangement with certainty.

What we do know is that most attorneys do not take on large, time consuming and costly cases without getting compensated and plaintiffs do not put themselves through the rigors of lawsuits (written discovery, depositions, physical/mental examinations in some cases depending upon the allegations, hours of preparation if the case goes to trial, et cetera) without there being something at the end of the rainbow. Otherwise, it simply is not worth it from both a financial and mental health standpoint to do so.

[Guest]

I forget the age of consent in CA.

Here in NV it's 16 so he wouldn't be automatically in trouble.

Just saying, I'm not defending it at all.

I believe it is 18.

[Guest]

Civil charges can occur first if the victim wants something done. Especially if the PD and DA take their time.

So, a civil complaint can be filed before and criminal charges get filed, but if the attorney believes the defendant is likely to be convicted for the same conduct criminally, then it may be a better approach to use the criminal conviction in support of the civil case as I discussed previously.

My experience is that district attorney offices make their own determination about if and when they will file criminal charges.

[dmac_bolt]

Civil suits are only about money. She’s also suing the property owner - thats a deeper pocket and likely insured. I am sure there is also satisfaction in winning a judgment and what that statement would make, but its about money.

Whether she is righteous and deserving or digging for gold, … tbd … my instinct is they fucked up huge and she is deserving but I don’t know.

[Xenos]

She filed a civil complaint for damages. She literally is going after his money. This what she is seeking (taken straight from her civil complaint for damages):

REQUEST FOR RELIEF



She is not seeking specific performance, injunctive relief or some other nonmonetary remedy. She is specifically seeking money in her complaint.

You falsely said that she was going after him because he was an NFL player. Except that he wasn’t when the incident was reported back in October 2021. Even if she magically knew that he was going to be an NFL one day, how much do you think a 6th rounder punter makes anyways?

[Guest]

You falsely said that she was going after him because he was an NFL player. Except that he wasn’t when the incident was reported back in October 2021. Even if she magically knew that he was going to be an NFL one day, how much do you think a 6th rounder punter makes anyways?

No, I did not falsely say anything of the kind.

What I said was:

Yet, it seems that nobody on this forum has even considered the possibility that the complaint, which at best contains the allegations of an admittedly very intoxicated person (which potentially affects her credibility), may be false or at least false as related to Araiza, who would be a good person to name in a lawsuit since he is/was an NFL player (i.e., someone with a comparatively deep pocket).

Clearly, I discussed the "possibility" that the woman's claims were false or false with respect to Araiza, who would be a good person to name in a lawsuit since he is/was an NFL player. I discussed that possibility because everyone on this forum seemed to be accepting the allegations of the complaint as if they were gospel, which seemed odd to me. I did not say that I had formed any conclusion one way or the other about the matter.

Further, the woman in fact did not "go after" Araiza until August 25, 2022 when she named Araiza in her lawsuit, well after Araiza was in the NFL.

Moreover, in October of 2021, it was well known that Araiza would likely be in the NFL.

Finally, it is my belief that Araiza signed a 4 year, $3.87M contract, which is more money than most folks make.

[Steve]

It's not magic to think he was going to be an NFL player. He was possibly the most exciting punter prospect in NFL history. Plus, never underestimate the ability of local people to overestimate how good their local prospects are.

That being said, yeah, I don't think money is at the root of this. If it was, they would have waited, unless there is some time limit coming up. Even then, he is a punter, so while there some money there potentially, he really wasn't going to make a boatload right off the bat. Even if her attorney didn't know that, it would have taken him less than an hour to do the research.

To me, this has to be her trying to get her pound of flesh. She, or her legal team, seems to be trying to stop his career before it gets started, which I think they have probably done.