Torrance Jail Death Settlement, Family of Juan Antonio Obeso Soto Receives $8.5 Million

The family of Juan Antonio Obeso Soto has reportedly reached an $8.5 million settlement with the City of Torrance, California, over his death in police custody on October 8, 2021. The lawsuit alleged that Torrance officers failed to recognize and respond to signs of a mental health crisis and left him alone in a holding cell with a telephone cord.

This is an individual wrongful-death and civil-rights case, not a class action. There is no public claim form, no settlement administrator, no eligibility test for other people and no claim deadline. Nobody outside the plaintiffs in this lawsuit can claim a share of the money.

This article explains the family’s allegations, the California and federal laws involved, what the public court record shows about the settlement, and what other families should know about deadlines if a loved one dies in a California jail. Allegations in a civil complaint are not proven facts, and a settlement is not a finding that the City of Torrance was legally responsible.

Torrance Jail Death Settlement: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Reported settlement amount	$8,500,000 (reported by the Daily Breeze in October 2026)
Defendant	City of Torrance, California
Deceased	Juan Antonio Obeso Soto
Date of death	October 8, 2021
Lawsuit filed	September 22, 2022
Court	Los Angeles County Superior Court
Case number	22STCV31095
Plaintiffs	Maria Soto (mother), Maritza Castro (wife), and two minor sons through guardians ad litem
Main claims	Negligence, negligence per se, wrongful death, Bane Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 52.1), 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and failure to summon immediate medical care (Cal. Gov. Code § 845.6)
Class action	No
Public claim form or deadline	None identified
Admission of liability	None established; settlements generally resolve a case without a liability finding

What Happened to Juan Antonio Obeso Soto in Torrance Police Custody?

The following account comes from the allegations in the lawsuit as summarized in the court record and in news reporting. The City has not been found liable by a trial verdict.

Torrance police arrested Soto on October 8, 2021. Reporting describes the arrest as stemming from a nuisance or suspicious-person call and says he was detained on suspicion of public intoxication, then taken to the Torrance jail for booking.

The complaint alleged that during booking he showed signs of a mental health crisis. The court record says he told officers he was delusional, and reporting says he told custody staff that people were after him and trying to kill him. The plaintiffs alleged that officers did not adequately investigate his mental state, get him medical attention or take precautions before placing him alone in a holding cell.

The cell contained a telephone. According to the allegations, Soto used the telephone cord to hang himself. Reporting says a motion-activated camera recorded the event and that staff did not find him for roughly an hour and a half. Reported times in news accounts vary, so this article does not state exact clock times. The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner reportedly determined the cause of death was hanging.

The plaintiffs also alleged the City lacked adequate safety-check plans, written suicide-prevention protocols and plans for detainees who are mentally ill or intoxicated, and that required safety checks were not performed under California’s jail standards.

Why Did the Soto Family Sue the City of Torrance?

The family relied on several legal theories. Each addresses a different part of the alleged failure.

Negligence and Negligence Per Se Against the City of Torrance

Negligence requires a duty of reasonable care, a breach of that duty, causation and harm. In a jail setting, the questions can include whether staff reasonably assessed the detainee, chose a safe cell, watched him, and responded to warning signs.

Negligence per se is a doctrine under which violating a statute or regulation designed to protect a certain class of people can create a presumption of negligence under California Evidence Code § 669. The plaintiff must still prove causation and harm. A rule violation does not by itself make a city responsible for a death.

Public entities in California are not liable in tort unless a statute makes them so (Cal. Gov. Code § 815), and they can be vicariously liable for the acts of employees within the scope of employment (Cal. Gov. Code § 815.2). That is why the complaint paired its negligence theories with statutory claims.

Wrongful Death Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60

California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60 lists who may bring a wrongful-death action, including certain surviving spouses, domestic partners, children and others the statute identifies. A wrongful-death claim seeks compensation for the survivors’ own losses, such as loss of support, companionship and society.

A separate survival action under California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30 can pursue claims the deceased person could have brought, subject to the statute’s limits. Wrongful death and survival claims are different, and they are governed by different damages rules.

Primary source: California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60.

Federal Civil Rights Claim Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment

The complaint included a substantive due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows a civil action when someone acting under color of state law deprives a person of federal rights. A person who is arrested but not yet convicted is a pretrial detainee, and their medical and safety claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than the Eighth Amendment.

In the Ninth Circuit, which covers California, failure-to-protect and denial-of-care claims by pretrial detainees are judged under an objective deliberate-indifference standard. Two leading decisions are Castro v. County of Los Angeles, 833 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2016) (en banc), and Gordon v. County of Orange, 888 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2018). The plaintiff still has to prove the elements of the claim. A death in custody is not enough on its own.

When a city is the defendant, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), adds a further hurdle. A city generally cannot be held liable under § 1983 just because it employs the officer. The plaintiff must connect the violation to a municipal policy, custom or other legally sufficient municipal action.

Primary sources: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Monell v. Department of Social Services.

California Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1)

The Bane Act gives a civil remedy when someone interferes, or tries to interfere, with rights secured by state or federal law through threats, intimidation or coercion. Negligence alone does not establish a Bane Act violation. The outcome depends on the facts and the governing standard.

Primary source: California Civil Code § 52.1.

California Government Code § 845.6: Failure to Summon Immediate Medical Care

Government Code § 845.6 addresses situations where a public employee knows or has reason to know that a prisoner needs immediate medical care and fails to take reasonable action to summon it. The statute has specific conditions and exceptions, so it does not make a public entity automatically liable for every medical emergency in custody.

In this case, the legal question included whether officers’ alleged failure to investigate Soto’s condition and get him help supported liability. The settlement does not reveal how a court would have ruled on that claim.

Primary source: California Government Code § 845.6.

California Title 15 Jail Standards

Local jails in California operate under Title 15 of the California Code of Regulations, which sets minimum standards for local detention facilities, including safety checks of people in custody (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 15, § 1027.5). The plaintiffs alleged the City did not meet those standards. A regulation can inform a negligence-per-se argument, but whether it was violated and whether the violation caused the death are questions a court or jury would decide.

How Much Was the Torrance Jail Death Settlement?

The reported figure is $8,500,000. The public court record adds detail about the children’s share of the case.

A publicly indexed Los Angeles County Superior Court tentative ruling dated December 17, 2025, in Case No. 22STCV31095, describes proposed settlements of $2,625,000 for each of Soto’s two minor children, or $5,250,000 combined. The court indicated it was inclined to approve the petitions. The ruling discussed a deferred annuity for each child, with withdrawals requiring court authorization.

Three cautions apply:

1. The $8,500,000 total is a reported figure. The settlement agreement and a complete breakdown were not available.
2. A tentative ruling is not a final order.
3. The record does not say how the money is divided among all plaintiffs, how much goes to attorneys’ fees and costs, or whether every plaintiff received an equal share.

Reporting says the family was represented by Carrillo Law Firm. The City reportedly declined to comment on insurance coverage, the funding source or any personnel discipline.

Why Did the Court Review the Children’s Settlements?

California courts must approve the settlement of a minor’s claim. The process is governed by California Code of Civil Procedure § 372, Probate Code § 3500 and California Rules of Court, rule 7.950. The judge looks at the proposed amount, attorney fees, costs and how the money will be protected for the child. Annuities and blocked accounts are common tools, but they are not required in every case.

Primary source: California Rules of Court, rule 7.950.

Can Other People Claim Money From the Torrance Settlement?

No. The settlement resolves only the claims of the plaintiffs in Soto v. City of Torrance (Case No. 22STCV31095). It does not create a fund, and no administrator is accepting claims. Anyone who finds a website offering to process claims for this settlement should treat it as a scam and not enter personal information.

A person whose relative died in a different jail incident is not covered by this settlement, however similar the facts look. That family would have its own claims, deadlines and defendants.

For a comparison, see our report on the Dallas County Considers $1.5 Million Settlement in Spencer Swearnger Jail Death Case, which involves a different custodial death and a separate proceeding.

What Deadlines Apply If a Loved One Dies in a California Jail?

These rules are general, and an attorney should confirm how they apply to a specific case.

Requirement	General rule	Source
Government claim for death or personal injury against a California public entity	Must generally be presented within six months of accrual, with a late-claim procedure in limited cases	Cal. Gov. Code § 911.2
Claim-presentation prerequisite to suing a public entity for money damages	A lawsuit generally cannot be filed until the claim is presented and acted on or deemed rejected	Cal. Gov. Code § 945.4
Wrongful death and personal injury lawsuit	Two years, generally	Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1
Federal § 1983 claim	California’s two-year personal-injury limitations period generally applies	Borrowed from Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1

The six-month government-claim window is the one most often missed, and it comes before the two-year lawsuit deadline.

Primary sources: California Government Code § 911.2 and § 945.4.

Practical Steps for Families After a California Jail Death

1. Write down everything you know: who arrested the person, where they were held, what staff were told and what you were told.
2. Ask for the autopsy report, booking and custody records, incident reports and any camera footage, and do it early because retention periods vary.
3. Keep medical and mental health records.
4. Speak with a civil-rights or wrongful-death attorney quickly, because of the six-month government-claim deadline. Many work on contingency.

Torrance Jail Death Case: Key Dates

Date	Event
October 8, 2021	Juan Antonio Obeso Soto dies in Torrance police custody
September 22, 2022	Civil complaint filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court
October 4, 2023	Third amended complaint filed
May 5, 2025	Court denies motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint (per later court record)
June 27, 2025	Notice of conditional settlement filed
December 17, 2025	Tentative ruling on petitions to approve the two minor children’s settlements
October 2026	$8.5 million settlement reported by the Daily Breeze

What the Torrance Settlement Means for Jail Safety

The case shows how a single custodial death can raise several legal issues at once: ordinary negligence, wrongful death, a statutory duty to summon medical care and constitutional protections for pretrial detainees. People in custody cannot seek help on their own, which is why courts look closely at how staff respond to visible distress, statements suggesting a crisis and known hazards such as a telephone cord in a cell.

The settlement does not set a statewide or nationwide rule about how every jail must monitor detainees. Nor does the payment prove that every allegation was true. What applies in a given case depends on the statutes, the constitutional standard, the circumstances of the detention and the evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Torrance Jail Death Settlement

How much was the Torrance jail death settlement?

The reported amount is $8,500,000. A court tentative ruling separately describes proposed settlements of $2,625,000 for each of Juan Antonio Obeso Soto’s two minor children. The full allocation has not been confirmed from public documents.

Who was Juan Antonio Obeso Soto?

He was a man who died in Torrance police custody on October 8, 2021. His mother, wife and two sons sued the City of Torrance, alleging negligence, wrongful death, civil-rights violations and failure to provide immediate medical care.

What is the case number in the Torrance jail death lawsuit?

Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. 22STCV31095.

Is there a claim form for the Torrance jail death settlement?

No. This is an individual lawsuit, not a class action, and no public claim form or administrator has been identified.

What did the Soto family allege against the City of Torrance?

They alleged that Soto showed signs of a mental health crisis, that officers failed to investigate or get him care, and that he was left unsupervised in a holding cell with a telephone cord. These are allegations, not trial findings.

What laws applied in the Torrance jail death lawsuit?

California wrongful-death law (Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60), negligence and negligence per se, the Bane Act (Civil Code § 52.1), Government Code § 845.6, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Did the settlement prove Torrance was legally responsible?

No. A settlement resolves a dispute without necessarily producing a finding of liability, and no trial verdict has decided the disputed allegations.

How long do families have to file a claim after a death in a California jail?

A government claim generally must be presented within six months (Gov. Code § 911.2), and a lawsuit generally must be filed within two years (Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1). Consult an attorney promptly, because exceptions and special rules exist.

How are wrongful-death settlements involving children handled in California?

A court must approve a minor’s settlement and can decide how the money is protected, for example through a blocked account or annuity (Code of Civil Procedure § 372, Probate Code § 3500, Rules of Court, rule 7.950).

Sources and Legal References

• Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 22STCV31095: publicly indexed December 17, 2025 tentative ruling on the minor claimants’ proposed settlements
• Daily Breeze reporting on the $8.5 million settlement (October 2026)
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978)
• California Code of Civil Procedure § 377.60
• California Civil Code § 52.1
• California Government Code § 845.6
• California Government Code § 911.2 and § 945.4
• California Rules of Court, rule 7.950

This article provides general legal information, not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is not a law firm. Settlement reporting and court records are not judicial findings of liability. If you have questions about a separate incident, consult a licensed California attorney about your facts and deadlines.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts checked against the cited statutes, the publicly indexed court record in Case No. 22STCV31095 and the Daily Breeze settlement report, as of October 9, 2026. Last Updated: October 9, 2026.