Families Sue Youths in Fatal Drive-By

Seeking to avenge the death of a teenager and the wounding of another in a drive-by shooting at Fallbrook Mall, two families have filed a civil lawsuit against all six youths who rode in the car, including three high school girls who escaped criminal charges.

It was an unusual drive-by, even by Los Angeles standards: two young men with reputed gang ties out for a night of cruising and drinking with four girls with clean records from comfortable homes south of Ventura Boulevard. The rare mingling of social classes ended with nine shots being fired, killing a 16-year-old boy and wounding another teen in June 1995.

Tommy Lee Williams and Elliott O’Neal Singletary were convicted last month of first-degree murder in the attack. Three of the four girls were not charged; two received grants of immunity for testifying against Williams and Singletary. The fourth still faces juvenile charges for her role.

Now, the families of Ramtin Shaolian--the Taft High School sophomore who was killed--and his friend, Mehdi Sina-Kadiz--who was wounded--are seeking unspecified damages from the six youths and their families.

“This suit sends a message that they all should have known better,” said attorney Gary Soter, who is representing the families. “Mr. Singletary and Mr. Williams are unlikely to have money. . . . But the family’s devastated. We think some amount of vindication is appropriate, that those girls ought to be held responsible.”

Joseph Mewshaw, a Calabasas attorney representing a female passenger in the car, said the suit improperly seeks to punish the girls, who found themselves in a situation beyond their control.

“They felt that they were the victims,” he said. “They felt fearful for their lives.” The suit centers on the teenage girls, who are not named in this article because of their ages. Prosecutors say they had insufficient evidence to support the murder and conspiracy charges that were filed and later dropped. Defense attorneys in the criminal trial of Williams and Singletary, however, portrayed the girls as scofflaws who falsified their stories to shift the blame onto the two young men.

The Shaolians, in the lawsuit, allege that the girls helped kill their son.

The 17-page suit asserts that Williams “planned to shoot into the group [of teens walking at the mall] and that all other named defendants knew that Williams intended to inflict grievous bodily harm. Each named defendant aided and abetted Williams and conspired with Williams before, during and after the shooting.”

The family has maintained a low profile since the shooting, rarely appearing in court or offering comment. They declined to be interviewed for this story.

Extensive efforts to contact the girls and their families, including visits to their homes, yielded no comments. A formal response to the suit has not yet been filed.

Though the suit was filed June 5, two of the girls proved so difficult to reach that they were served only when they showed up to testify in criminal court last month.

The civil suit requires a lower standard of proof than a criminal case. Faced with the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the girls participated in the shooting, prosecutors chose to grant them immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for their testimony. A civil case, however, requires only a preponderance of evidence to show liability.

Filing a civil suit on the heels of a criminal case has become increasingly common, legal experts say, creating the impression that civil law serves as a second chance for justice.

“There is a widespread feeling that the criminal system isn’t working, so there’s a tendency for people to rely on the civil system,” said Bill Fry, executive director of HALT--An Organization of Americans for Legal Reform. “Families of victims say, ‘Oh, no. We’re not going to let you off the hook.’ And they sue.”

Phil Nameth, a public defender who represented Singletary in the criminal trial, speculated that the family filed the suit to “help them with closure.”

“This isn’t a profit-oriented lawsuit,” said Nameth, who also has practiced civil law. “It has become very common that victims of crime go this route, even after the system may not assist them.”

If the convictions of Williams and Singletary are upheld on appeal, their guilt in civil court would not have to be established. The civil trial would only determine the amount of damages they would be required to pay, if any.

USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who teaches both civil and criminal law, believes that the O.J. Simpson civil case has distorted the public’s perception of the relationship between the two branches of the legal system.

“We don’t have a justice system primarily designed for the psychic satisfaction of the victim,” he said. “But we know that’s why a lot of people file lawsuits.

“We hear so much about ‘victims’ rights.’ Part of victims’ rights should be the ability to sue to get compensation for a crime.”