Miami Teen Assault Lawsuit Ends in Defense Verdict
Table of Contents
Case Background
This intense civil case took place in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The lawsuit pitted A.R., a minor represented by her mother and next friend, Elida Villaroel (the Plaintiffs), against M.P., a minor represented by his mother, Ana Palacios (the Defendant). The suit arose from events that allegedly occurred between the two teenagers in December 2022. The Plaintiffs sought significant financial damages, claiming that the Defendant committed three separate torts: simple battery, sexual battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Cause
The complaint explicitly stated that the cause of action stemmed from the Defendant’s alleged intentional conduct toward A.R. on December 23, 2022. Both A.R. and M.P. were students at Coral Gables High School and were attending a party at a mutual friend’s apartment complex club house in Miami. The lawsuit claimed that during this event, M.P. engaged in acts that constituted unlawful and non-consensual touching, penetration, and behavior designed to cause extreme emotional suffering to A.R.
Injury
A.R. claimed she suffered severe and lasting harm as a direct result of M.P.’s alleged actions. The primary injuries included severe emotional distress and extreme mental pain and suffering. The Plaintiff claimed that the events caused her to suffer deeply over the loss of her reputation, her self-esteem, her pride, and her good name. The complaint noted that these injuries caused, and would continue to cause, further mental anguish and embarrassment in the future, necessitating substantial financial recovery.
Damages Sought
The Plaintiffs filed the Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial seeking compensation for A.R.’s injuries. They specifically demanded judgment against M.P. for damages exceeding the jurisdictional minimum of $30,000, in addition to demanding coverage for costs and interest. Upon a future application, the Plaintiffs also reserved the right to seek leave to amend the complaint to plead a claim for punitive damages, indicating that they believed M.P.’s conduct warranted punishment beyond simple compensation.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
This case, identified as a General Jurisdiction Division matter, involved the examination of highly personal and sensitive claims. The trial focused on determining whether the Defendant possessed the requisite intent and performed the specific actions required to meet the legal standards for the three intentional torts claimed.
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): A.R., a minor by and through her next best friend Elida Villaroel
· Counsel for Plaintiff(S): Richard J. Diaz | Nicole M Diaz
Defendant(S): M.P., A Minor By and through his Next Best Friend Ana Palacios
· Counsel for Defendant(s): Ramon A. Hernandez, P.A.
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
The Plaintiffs structured their case around three distinct legal counts, arguing that M.P.’s conduct met the criteria for each one.
Count I: Simple Battery: The Plaintiffs argued that M.P. committed a simple battery on A.R., meaning he touched her without her consent and with the specific intent to harm her. This established the foundational physical element of the claim.
Count II: Sexual Battery: This was the most serious claim. The Plaintiffs asserted that M.P. committed a sexual battery on A.R., alleging non-consensual penetration. The complaint claimed that M.P. knowingly engaged in an act that qualified as sexual battery under Florida statute, which immediately supported the claim for punitive damages due to the egregious nature of the alleged act.
Count III: Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED): Counsel argued that M.P.’s actions were objectively outrageous and extreme, and that he engaged in the conduct specifically to cause severe distress to A.R. They contended that M.P.’s knowing involvement in the alleged sexual battery showed extreme ill will and the requisite intent to cause A.R. extreme mental pain and suffering.
Defense
M.P.’s defense team filed an Answer that generally denied every allegation in the Complaint, demanding strict proof of all claims. They did not admit to any of the specific factual allegations. Furthermore, the defense presented several Affirmative Defenses to counter the Plaintiffs’ case.
General Denial and Lack of Intent: The core of the defense was a simple denial of the alleged acts. Beyond the general denial, M.P. specifically asserted a Lack of Intent, claiming he did not act with the requisite intent needed to establish battery, sexual battery, or IIED.
No Outrageous Conduct: Regarding the IIED claim, the defense argued that M.P.’s conduct, even if proven, was neither outrageous nor extreme, which are necessary legal requirements to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress under Florida law.
Other Defenses: The defense also raised the affirmative defense of Unclean Hands, suggesting A.R. had participated in some of the same conduct she later claimed caused her damages, which they argued should prevent her from obtaining the relief she sought. They also challenged the legal sufficiency of the claims themselves, asserting that the Plaintiffs failed to prove the required elements.
Jury Verdict
The trial concluded in Miami-Dade County on May 30, 2025. After deliberating on the evidence and testimony presented, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Defendant, M.P.
The jury found that the Plaintiffs, A.R. and Elida Villaroel, failed to convince them, by the greater weight of the evidence, that M.P. was legally responsible for any of the three intentional torts claimed: simple battery, sexual battery, or intentional infliction of emotional distress. This determination resulted in a judgment for the Defendant.
Because the jury did not find M.P. liable on any of the claims, they did not proceed to the damage calculation sections of the verdict form. This finding meant that the Plaintiffs received no monetary award, concluding the civil action against M.P.