Page 1
Court of Appeal:
Civil Settlement Doesn’t Bar Criminal Restitution Order
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The settlement of a civil action extinguishing liability to the plaintiffs does not preclude an award of restitution to them in a criminal proceeding arising from the same events, the Court of Appeal for this district held on Friday.
An order by Ventura Superior Court Judge David R. Worley denying the prosecution’s request for an order for restitution in the case of drunk driver who caused injuries to persons was reversed in an opinion by Justice Kenneth Yegan of Div. Six.
Nolan Takao Nonaka, while intoxicated, ran a red light and crashed into a vehicle driven by litigation support advisor Ame Spett, whose pelvis was fractured. Her 14-year-old daughter, Lyla, incurred multiple injuries including a lacerated spleen and a ruptured kidney.
Settlement Reached
Represented by David R. Lira (son-in-law of Thomas V. Girardi) of the now-defunct firm of Girardi | Keese, the mother and daughter entered into a settlement. Ame Spett received $235,000, minus $61,574.44—$58,750 in attorney fees (pursuant to a contingency agreement) and $2,824.44 in costs, leaving the client with 173,425.56.
The daughter garnered $200,000. A petition to approve a compromise of a minor’s claim was approved by Ventura Superior Court Judge Vincent J. O’Neill Jr. on Aug. 10, 2020.
In criminal court, where Nonaka pled guilty, the District Attorney’s Office sought restitution for the mother—only—in the amount of the $61,574.44 that had been diverted from the settlement. Worley denied the motion, declaring:
“The negotiated settlement between the parties to the civil action was an arm’s length transaction in which the victims knew precisely what their net recovery would be following the deduction of fees and costs. Accepting this settlement established that net recovery as the reasonable compensation for their damages and, therefore, the recovery they were entitled to.”
Constitutional Provision
In his opinion reversing the order, Yegan pointed to Art. I, §28(b)(13)(B) of the California Constitution which provides:
“Restitution shall be ordered from the convicted wrongdoer in every case, regardless of the sentence or disposition imposed, in which a crime victim suffers a loss.”
The jurist wrote:
“A restitution order does not simply indemnify a crime victim for her economic losses, but also seeks to rehabilitate and deter the defendant from future criminality. Consequently, a civil settlement between a victim and the defendant’s insurer does not relieve the defendant of his restitution obligation to the state.”
In a footnote, he pointed out:
“The People were not a party to the settlement and a civil ‘claimant’ cannot alter the remedy set out by the California Constitution.”
The case is People v. Nonaka, B313848.
Copyright 2022, Metropolitan News Company