Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 12-13-2022
Case Style:
Lea Ann Lavielle and Michael Lavielle v. Daniel Bertam Acosta
Case Number: 5:26-cv-01002
Judge: David L. Russell
Court: United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma County)
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan
Click Here For The Best Oklahoma City Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer.
Defendant's Attorney: Timothy D. Beets
Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants claiming that they assaulted, battered, stalked, harassed, theatened, intimidated and verbally and physically abused them
Acosta lived across the street from the plaintiffs in this action, Lea Ann and Michael Lavielle and their three minor children, in a small, rural town in southwestern Kansas. Plaintiffs alleged that for more than a decade, Acosta had
engaged in a pattern and practice of assaulting, battering, stalking, harassing, threatening, intimidating, and verbally and physically abusing them. During that time, plaintiffs obtained a protective order prohibiting Acosta from having any direct or indirect contact with them. Acosta disregarded it and continued with this pattern of behavior. Eventually, plaintiffs moved to Oklahoma to hide from Acosta and were residents of Oklahoma at the time they filed their complaint.
In their claim against him, plaintiffs asserted Acosta had intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct (in both Kansas and Oklahoma) that caused them extreme and severe mental distress. They sought damages and injunctive relief. Acosta filed a variety of counterclaims against Michael and Lea Ann, one of which proceeded to a
jury trial.
Outcome: The jury found in favor of plaintiffs on their claim, which the court reduced to
a continuing tort of outrage under Kansas law, and against Acosta on his
counterclaim against Michael. The jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages
and $32,000 in punitive damages to each of the five Lavielles, and an additional
$40,000 in economic damages to Michael. The district court permanently enjoined
Acosta from contacting any of the plaintiffs in any manner; abusing, threatening, injuring, assaulting, molesting, stalking, harassing, or interfering with any of them; damaging or injuring their property; placing them under surveillance; following them; entering their property or directing any object or person to enter their property; or directing any third party to do any of the acts prohibited by the court’s order. The court also denied Acosta’s motion for a new trial, where he advanced a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and argued that the damages awards were, for various reasons, improper under Kansas law.
Judgement renewed on December 7, 2022.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Defendant's Attorney: Timothy D. Beets
Description: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma personal injury lawyer represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants claiming that they assaulted, battered, stalked, harassed, theatened, intimidated and verbally and physically abused them
Acosta lived across the street from the plaintiffs in this action, Lea Ann and Michael Lavielle and their three minor children, in a small, rural town in southwestern Kansas. Plaintiffs alleged that for more than a decade, Acosta had
engaged in a pattern and practice of assaulting, battering, stalking, harassing, threatening, intimidating, and verbally and physically abusing them. During that time, plaintiffs obtained a protective order prohibiting Acosta from having any direct or indirect contact with them. Acosta disregarded it and continued with this pattern of behavior. Eventually, plaintiffs moved to Oklahoma to hide from Acosta and were residents of Oklahoma at the time they filed their complaint.
In their claim against him, plaintiffs asserted Acosta had intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct (in both Kansas and Oklahoma) that caused them extreme and severe mental distress. They sought damages and injunctive relief. Acosta filed a variety of counterclaims against Michael and Lea Ann, one of which proceeded to a
jury trial.
Outcome: The jury found in favor of plaintiffs on their claim, which the court reduced to
a continuing tort of outrage under Kansas law, and against Acosta on his
counterclaim against Michael. The jury awarded $20,000 in compensatory damages
and $32,000 in punitive damages to each of the five Lavielles, and an additional
$40,000 in economic damages to Michael. The district court permanently enjoined
Acosta from contacting any of the plaintiffs in any manner; abusing, threatening, injuring, assaulting, molesting, stalking, harassing, or interfering with any of them; damaging or injuring their property; placing them under surveillance; following them; entering their property or directing any object or person to enter their property; or directing any third party to do any of the acts prohibited by the court’s order. The court also denied Acosta’s motion for a new trial, where he advanced a challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), and argued that the damages awards were, for various reasons, improper under Kansas law.
Judgement renewed on December 7, 2022.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: