The 2016 Small Claims Judgment Against Scott Lewis

After discovering the case against Scott Lewis in California (case number 16M03964), I reached out to the plaintiff about making the details available to those concerned about the abuse by Scott Lewis within the science communication community. She agreed to disclose the evidence she presented to the court on July 5, 2016, a case for which the judge ruled in her favor that same day.

“The scope of the harm at the hands of Scott Lewis has been completely shocking to me,” she told me. “I have since heard from multiple people that it was the existence of my court case which helped them believe the survivors who came forward. As the only person currently known to have taken Scott Lewis to court, I have decided to share my evidence. Scientists are experts at analyzing and relying on evidence to ascertain facts; however, science fails us when it comes to abuse and interpersonal harm because so many of Scott Lewis’ victims don’t have documented evidence of what he did, and when they do, the decision to share that evidence is one which cannot be done anonymously, or without legal repercussions. But I am able to share my evidence, and I hope it helps more people trust and believe others who have been similarly victimized by Scott Lewis.”

The first loan the plaintiff made to Scott Lewis occurred on September 8, 2015. It was a small loan for $200. The plaintiff had known Scott Lewis since the beginning of that summer, and he had shared his financial difficulties with her.

Check made by plaintiff for $200 to help Scott Lewis pay for groceries. Writing funny memos on checks was a mutual habit, as illustrated by a subsequent check from Scott Lewis to the plaintiff for partial reimbursement (below). Nevertheless, in order to counteract possible allegations that the plaintiff had given Scott Lewis money in exchange for the services written in the memos rather than as a loan, the plaintiff presented evidence of lending to Scott Lewis by a mutual friend. Allegations that money was received for services described in the memos were not made; however, Scott Lewis attempted to have the evidence of loans from another person suppressed.

The day after this first loan, over text message, Scott Lewis agreed to purchase a book for the plaintiff using an Amazon credit card he had that gave him points to use toward purchases from the marketplace giant. In so doing, Scott Lewis acknowledged owing the plaintiff money, telling her, “you can just deduct [the cost of the book] from what I owe you.”

In these texts, Scott Lewis (shown in gray) acknowledges the sum previously received from the plaintiff was a loan.

On September 17, Scott Lewis texted the plaintiff about additional money troubles, claiming that a paycheck for $4,000 had been delayed due to an error on the part of his employer. Scott Lewis expressed hope that the paycheck would arrive before his rent was due, and before a trip to San Francisco that he had planned with the plaintiff.

In these messages, Scott Lewis discusses a lost paycheck from his employer for $4,000.

On September 24, the plaintiff offered to provide Scott Lewis additional funds to help him cover his expenses, stipulating that this money was a loan.

In these texts, the plaintiff offers to help Scott Lewis, noting she expected to be paid back.

Five days later, Scott Lewis texted the plaintiff again about his financial situation.

That same day, the plaintiff agreed to loan Scott Lewis the money needed for rent and his car insurance.

The check that the plaintiff made out to Scott Lewis to cover his rent was written on September 29, 2015 — the same day the plaintiff reminded him of her offer to loan him money. As before, there is a joke in the memo.

This screenshot of the plaintiff’s bank account shows the payment to Geico for Scott Lewis’ car insurance, which posted the day after the plaintiff wrote Scott Lewis a check to cover his rent.

On September 29, the day the plaintiff agreed to help Scott Lewis cover his bills, Scott Lewis sat down with the plaintiff and created a Google Sheets spreadsheet to track his debts to her. Scott Lewis gave the plaintiff access to this spreadsheet using the share function on Google Drive.

This screenshot shows Scott Lewis created the spreadsheet “Scott Owes [Plaintiff]” and shared access with plaintiff, granting her editing permissions (as illustrated by the pencil).

On October 16, 2015, Scott Lewis paid back $650 of the money he owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never updated about the situation with the alleged $4,000 paycheck. Their agreement was that when the check came, Scott Lewis would pay the plaintiff back. It is not known for certain whether the missing paycheck ever did arrive, whether there was a check at all, or where the $650 that Scott Lewis repaid came from.

This image, obtained through the plaintiff’s bank, illustrates the habit of writing joke memos on checks was a mutual one.

The plaintiff asked for the remaining amount or some fraction of it on October 29, 2015.

The plaintiff again asked for her money on November 18, 2015, almost three weeks later.

On November 30, the plaintiff discovered that Scott Lewis had borrowed $1,200 from a friend of hers (and he would go on to borrow an additional $400 from this person in late January). This individual has not come forward publicly, but this bears mention because evidence relating to this loan was presented by the plaintiff during mediation at Small Claims to counteract possible allegations by Scott Lewis that borrowing money was limited to his relationship with the plaintiff. Scott Lewis attempted to have this evidence excluded.

On January 31, 2016, the spreadsheet that Scott Lewis made with the plaintiff to track his debt showed an outstanding sum of $1,386.13.

Some items have been redacted to protect the privacy of those concerned.

By February, interactions between the plaintiff and Scott Lewis had ceased almost entirely, with the exception of occasional outreach on the part of the plaintiff to get paid back for the loans she had made to Scott Lewis the previous year.

On April 9, the plaintiff again asked Scott Lewis to pay her what he owed. She received no response.

By the time Scott Lewis received this, it had been over six months since he had borrowed money from the plaintiff.

On April 26, the plaintiff again asked Scott Lewis to pay her what he owed and warned that failure to respond would result in legal action, something she hoped to avoid.

This e-mail makes mention of the plaintiff’s friend from whom Scott Lewis also borrowed money.

On May 3, after receiving no response from Scott Lewis, the plaintiff took legal action as she had warned a week prior.

Between the first and fourth failed attempts by the sheriff to serve Scott Lewis over the next two weeks, the plaintiff noticed that the debts spreadsheet that Scott Lewis had created and shared with her had been deleted. Other files shared by Scott Lewis with the plaintiff on Google Drive, however, had not been affected. The deletion was specific to evidence of Scott Lewis’ debt to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff was fortunate that she had taken multiple screenshots as well as downloaded a copy of the spreadsheet when she began contemplating the possibility of having to take legal action.

Scott Lewis evaded being served for a month. Finally, on June 2, 2016, he was successfully served. He was subsequently e-mailed a settlement offer on June 22, 2016. The offer was ignored.

On July 5, the day of the court hearing, Scott Lewis made an appearance at Small Claims (hence court records indicating “judgment — contested”). He attempted to postpone the trial when faced with the plaintiff’s evidence. He was denied.

Scott Lewis alleged that he had taken care of the plaintiff when she became unemployed despite the plaintiff having bank statements showing that she had been living off her savings during that period, and that, furthermore, Scott Lewis had borrowed from her and failed to pay her back during that same period, knowing her employment situation.

Scott Lewis disputed nearly every item in the spreadsheet that he had coauthored with the plaintiff and subsequently attempted to delete. He refused to settle.

A screenshot of the revision history of the debt spreadsheet shows that on September 29, 2015, the day of its creation, the crucial aspects of the spreadsheet had been input by Scott Lewis (shown in purple), and that the plaintiff’s account had been active as well (teal), meaning each were using their own accounts during the creation of the document.

The judge heard the case and ruled in favor of the plaintiff that same day, making Scott Lewis liable for the principal amount of $1,386.13 plus legal costs, to a total of $1,416.13.

Scott Lewis had 30 days to issue an appeal. He did not. He also did not pay the money owed, as outlined in court.

On August 12, Scott Lewis was sent an e-mail to initiate the collection of the money owed to the plaintiff. Having failed to respond, Scott Lewis was mailed a physical letter to initiate collection five days later, warning that failure to respond might result in bank levies and wage garnishments.

On August 29, a Writ of Execution was obtained to seize Scott Lewis’ assets. This is a legal step that enables a sheriff to seize money or other assets from a defendant, including wages through their employer. In the state of California, this can be as much as 25 percent of a debtor’s net earnings for as long as it takes to pay a judgment (and interest accrued) in full.

The plaintiff also acquired a bank levy on a known bank account belonging to Scott Lewis, as well as an Earnings Withholding Order through his current employer. (An employer that receives an Earnings Withholding Order is legally required to begin withholding wages starting on the first pay period occurring ten days after receipt of the order.)

There are safeguards to prevent causing debtors undue financial strain as a result of bank levies and wage garnishments, which means that extremely low income individuals may file a Claim of Exemption to avoid hardship until their financial situation improves. Filing for bankruptcy is also an option in such a situation.

As of the writing of this post, the plaintiff has not received any of the money due her as determined by the court. The current amount to satisfy is now $1,527.67, with an interest per day of 0.39.

The plaintiff has not received a Notice of Filing of Claim of Exemption, which would let her know that Scott Lewis is claiming that he needs his full wages and bank funds to support himself. As matters stand, the plaintiff is set to receive the first of Scott Lewis’ wage garnishments on November 18, for a total of $25.42.

It has been over one year since Scott Lewis first asked her to borrow money.

“I hope that if you are on the fence, this evidence helps you believe the original Medium post about Scott Lewis, the other survivors, and me,” the plaintiff said when asked if she had any additional remarks. “I hope that it can dispel some of the lies I suspect Scott Lewis may have told you about me, about the court case, about loans he claims he made to me when the truth is the reverse, and that this will cause you to begin doubting what he has told you about other former friends, partners, coworkers, and employers of his. I hope it inspires you to do what you can to support survivors. I hope that in our coming together, Scott Lewis will decide to change for the better. Thank you.”

Update as of 12:32 Pacific Time on 3rd December 2016: After receiving a single garnishment check for $25.42 on November 21, pending payouts to the plaintiff dropped to $0.00 — meaning she should not expect further checks from Scott Lewis’ garnished wages. The court sheriff’s website documenting action on collection for the plaintiff offers no explanation for this change. There are still no challenges to the writ. By law, employers are forced to comply with garnishments, so it’s unclear how Scott Lewis is avoiding this. It’s possible he is no longer employed at this business, or that he has arranged for payment in housing or some other exemption to bring the dollar amount he obtains for his work under the minimum required by California for garnishing. These loopholes are, unfortunately, not uncommon.

Take a moment to let that sink in. As Ralph Warner writes: “If a deadbeat debtor won’t pay voluntarily, collecting your judgment can be difficult and require you to spend more money, without knowing if you’ll be able to collect enough from the defendant to repay these collection expenses. [ … ] You can sue and get judgments against these deadbeat defendants until red cows dance on a pink moon, but you won’t be able to collect a dime.” Keep this in mind next time you tell a victim of financial abuse that the court system has all the answers they need to address the wrongs they have experienced.

A judgment may be useful in terms of validating a survivor of interpersonal violence and enable community members to believe them, but it does not necessarily mean that justice will be served. In many cases, pursuing legal action can be retraumatizing, time-consuming, emotionally draining and not helpful to the healing of a survivor. This is why it is important to do what we can to avoid pressuring survivors to seek legal remedies unless doing so is something that they want to do, having been given enough information to make an informed decision. We should especially be vigilant against holding our support ransom until survivors seek legal remedies to “validate” their accounts of abuse.

Information for this post was compiled and written by the Survivor Liaison. This post has been updated to clarify the descriptions in the check memos from the plaintiff. To give additional context, a banking image of a check for partial reimbursement from Scott Lewis has been included.