Judge rejects U of A QB Jayden de Laura's settlement in Hawaii sex-assault lawsuit

A judge in Hawaii has rejected a financial settlement negotiated between University of Arizona quarterback Jayden de Laura, University of Wisconsin safety Kamo’i Latu and a woman who alleges the players sexually assaulted her in 2018 when all three were juveniles.

The judge suggested in the Aug. 31 ruling that the woman who is suing shouldn’t have accepted an amount she sees as “too low” from de Laura, Latu and their parents, now that the players’ incomes have grown substantially because they are allowed to earn money as college athletes from their names, images and likenesses. De Laura also is selling digital collectibles known as NFTs, the court was told.

The judge, after declining to rule that the settlement was reached in good faith, scheduled a January mediation hearing.

It was publicly reported in May that the two players had agreed to settle.

The woman’s lawsuit also names as a defendant the private high school de Laura and Latu attended, St. Louis School in Honolulu. She alleges in court records that she was sexually assaulted by the two players and choked by de Laura in a parking garage stairwell at the high school on Oct. 27, 2018 when she was “about 17.”

De Laura told reporters in July this year: “There’s nothing I would like to do but clear my name if I could, (to) defend myself from what’s being written. However, I hope you understand that I’m bound by the law to not discuss this matter at all.”

The woman is named in the court documents but the Arizona Daily Star does not generally name alleged victims of sexual assault. She filed the civil suit on Dec. 2, 2021.

St. Louis School has not agreed to settle, and the judge, Lisa W. Cataldo of Hawaii Circuit Court in Honolulu, found that in agreeing to relatively “low” settlement amounts with the players, the plaintiff was trying to shift too much of the financial liability onto the school.

The proposed settlement agreements were filed under seal, the judge wrote, so they are not publicly available and the dollar figures are confidential.

However, Cataldo wrote in her Aug. 31 ruling that she “cannot reach a good faith settlement determination” because: “... Plaintiff has unwavering and rock-solid confidence in her case and her likelihood of success at trial, and approximates her total damages at greater than seven figures.”

The judge emphasized that the plaintiff also says de Laura and Latu, not the school, “have the majority of liability.”

But the settlement agreements with de Laura and Latu “reflect a combined settlement figure that is ‘less than one-tenth of the demand plaintiff made on (St. Louis School),’” Cataldo wrote, without disclosing any specific amounts.

NIL incomes

De Laura’s and Latu’s incomes were deemed confidential by the court and not released, but Hawaii News Now reported in July that attorneys for St. Louis School revealed in court that de Laura earns about $8,000 per month and received a free car as part of his name, image and likeness (NIL) deals, while Latu made $17,500 in June alone.

In October 2022, de Laura posted a photo on Instagram of himself standing next to a late-model Dodge Challenger in front of a Tucson auto dealership, and used the caption to thank various entities for “the opportunity,” including Friends of Wilbur and Wilma, self-described as a “fan-driven and alumni-led Name, Image, and Likeness program for University of Arizona student-athletes” that connects athletes with potential NIL benefactors.

As for Latu, the judge wrote that his income in May 2023 alone was more than his total income since 2020 that he had reported seven months earlier, and “that one month of income alone represents nearly half the settlement that Kamoi Latu and his parents combined agreed to pay in the settlement.”

Cataldo also wrote that de Laura recently filed an amended income report with the court and that it was significantly higher than the amount he previously disclosed in June of this year.

NCAA players have been allowed to earn NIL income since a change in the rules took effect July 1, 2021.

“Plaintiff acknowledges that the settlement amounts are too low” but says the reason she agreed to accept them is that “the defendants paid all they could. However, nothing in the record supports this justification,” Cataldo wrote.

The plaintiff’s attorney says the woman wants to settle because she has limited means, litigation is likely to take one to two years at minimum, and she wants to “reduce the chances that she will have to see Jayden De Laura and Kamoi Latu in person ever again,” the judge said.

“None of these reasons warrant ignoring the significant disproportionate share of liability Plaintiff admittedly seeks to shift to” St. Louis School, Cataldo ruled.

Back to homepage

Subscriber Login

Keep reading with a digital access subscription.

Subscribe now

The woman’s claims

Cataldo summarized the woman’s claims, writing: “The Plaintiff’s petition describes ‘brutal sexual assault’ (also referred to as rape) by football teammates Jayden De Laura and Kamoi Latu, which Jayden De Laura subsequently admitted to in writing and for which he ‘eventually apologized’ ... Ultimately, Plaintiff alleges Jayden De Laura and Kamoi Latu pled guilty to sexual assault.”

The judge wrote in a footnote in her Aug. 31 ruling that the plaintiff states she has direct text messages from de Laura apologizing and lamenting “having jeopardized his future.”

In a second footnote, Cataldo referenced court filings in which she said de Laura and Latu “did not represent that the settlement amounts reflected all they could pay, nor did they take issue with any of the statements in the Petition, including Plaintiff’s characterization of the ‘brutal sexual assault,’ the admission by Jayden De Laura, or the alleged guilty pleas.”

However, the judge added, at a court hearing an attorney for Latu “claimed any sexual conduct” between the plaintiff and Latu “was consensual.”

The Arizona Daily Star reported in May that according to the woman’s lawsuit, the plaintiff filed a police report in December of 2018 and showed police messages exchanged between herself and de Laura. The lawsuit said de Laura and Latu were charged with second-degree sexual assault as juveniles in Hawaii. The lawsuit also claimed they later pleaded guilty and were ordered to write apology letters to the plaintiff.

Independent documentation is unavailable because records in juvenile cases are closed to the public.

Rebuttals of players, coach

In a statement to the Star in May, attorneys for de Laura said he never pleaded guilty and was not convicted of sexual assault.

“Under Hawaii law, the records and files in juvenile cases are sealed, and all parties are prohibited by law from releasing them,” de Laura’s attorneys, Philip Miyoshi and Thomas Otake, wrote then.

“Further, when the civil lawsuit was brought well after the juvenile matter in Family Court concluded, Jayden chose to resolve it quickly, with no admissions of guilt, so he could focus on his academic and athletic career, and all parties could move forward with their lives without the stressors of a lengthy litigation process.”

One of Latu’s lawyers, Michael Green, told Hawaii News Now: “In my view, this case was better not to be tried. For closure for him, certainly closure for this young woman ... we just wanted my client to go on with his life, let her go on with her life” by agreeing to settle.

On Pac-12 Media Day on July 21, de Laura said himself that the lawsuit’s claims that he pleaded guilty or was convicted of sexual assault were “misinformation,” and UA football coach Jedd Fisch said de Laura “was never guilty, never pled guilty or was never found guilty of anything.”

University of Arizona officials said in May they have known since September 2022 that de Laura was named in the Hawaii case and determined he would remain on the UA team. De Laura had transferred to Arizona from Washington State in January 2022.

Outside lawyer’s perspective

Hawaii News Now has quoted two legal experts in that state, not involved in this case, as saying the court terms used in juvenile cases are different than in adult criminal cases. Juveniles may essentially be found to be responsible rather than guilty, they said.

“A juvenile is never convicted, or found guilty. Instead, they are adjudicated,” Victor Bakke, a former deputy prosecutor who has handled multiple juvenile cases in that state, told Hawaii News Now. “And they don’t enter a plea of guilty, they either admit or they deny, but at the end of the day, it ends up at the same place.”

The news outlet reported, “Bakke said the juvenile case ends with either adjudication, which means the teen was found responsible for the alleged acts, or ends with the petition being dismissed.” If the case against de Laura and Latu had been dismissed, Bakke told Hawaii News Now he would expect their legal teams to announce that publicly, which they did not.

Bakke also disputed de Laura’s saying he’s “bound by law” not to speak on the juvenile case. “I cannot find any gag order or no-contact order where he’s not allowed,” Bakke told Hawaii News Now, adding that while privacy is a hallmark of juvenile court, those accused are generally free to discuss a case publicly and defend themselves.