The federal civil-rights lawsuit arising from the deputy-involved shooting death of 20-year-old Jayden Baez was resolved for $1 million, according to reporting published July 23 and 24, 2026. The settlement closed the case and avoided a jury trial. Although headlines have described the agreement as a settlement for Baez’s family, the plaintiffs also included three surviving occupants of the vehicle. For example, one survivor was shot three times, while another suffered gunshot wounds to both hands and permanent disfigurement.
The public reporting does not reveal how the $1 million will be allocated among Baez’s estate representatives and the surviving plaintiffs. It also does not disclose the complete settlement agreement, the scope of any releases, or whether the defendants entered a no-admission-of-liability clause. Those limitations matter because the total settlement should not be treated as a publicly confirmed $1 million payment solely to Baez’s family. The case followed the April 27, 2022 response by the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office to a reported shoplifting incident at a Target in Kissimmee, Florida. Baez died after Sergeants Scott Koffinas and Ramy Yacoub fired into the occupied Audi in which he and the other plaintiffs were located, according to a [January 13, 2026 federal court order](https://atlantablackstar.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/Qualify-Immunity-denied.pdf).
Table of Contents
- Why Did the Family of Jayden Baez Reach a $1 Million Settlement in the Deputy-Involved Shooting Lawsuit?
- The Federal Civil-Rights Claims and the Plaintiffs Behind the Settlement
- What Happened During the Kissimmee Target Shooting?
- How Courts Evaluate Damages and Settlement Tradeoffs in Police-Shooting Cases
- Qualified Immunity, Summary Judgment, and the Limits of the Court’s Ruling
- Who Is Paying the $1 Million Settlement?
- The Grand Jury Review and the Eleventh Circuit Appeal
- Frequently Asked Questions
Why Did the Family of Jayden Baez Reach a $1 Million Settlement in the Deputy-Involved Shooting Lawsuit?
Court records showed that the parties resolved the case for $1 million before a jury could decide the disputed excessive-force claims, according to [WFTV’s July 23, 2026 report](https://www.wftv.com/news/local/settlement-reached-lawsuit-over-fatal-deputy-shooting-teen-outside-target/OSJA7KRSA5B7JJCAC2NKZB4PJQ/). [ClickOrlando independently reported](https://www.clickorlando.com/video/news/2026/07/25/family-of-jayden-baez-reaches-1-million-settlement-in-2022-florida-deputy-involved-shooting-lawsuit/) on July 24 that the family had reached the settlement in the federal civil-rights action. Settlements commonly reflect litigation risk rather than a final determination that either side’s account is correct. Here, the defendants faced the prospect of a jury trial after the court declined to dispose of the principal Fourth Amendment claims at summary judgment.
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, faced the uncertainty of proving liability and damages at trial, defending any favorable verdict on appeal, and potentially waiting years for a final recovery. That tradeoff can be substantial in a police-shooting case. A jury verdict might exceed a negotiated settlement if jurors find the force unconstitutional and award significant wrongful-death and personal-injury damages. It might also result in a defense verdict or a smaller award. The reported $1 million payment replaced those uncertain outcomes with a fixed resolution, but the undisclosed allocation prevents a reliable comparison between the settlement and the value assigned to each person’s claims.
The Federal Civil-Rights Claims and the Plaintiffs Behind the Settlement
The lawsuit was filed September 20, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Its case number was [6:23-cv-1824-GAP-RMN](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/6%3A2023cv01824/418655). Michael Gomez, Joseph Lowe, and Ian Joi sued alongside Alejandro Baez and Josephine Cartagena, who represented Baez’s estate. The defendants were Sergeants Koffinas and Yacoub, as well as the sheriff in his official capacity.
The action arose under 42 U.S.C. §1983, the federal statute commonly used to seek damages when a person acting under color of state law allegedly violates constitutional rights. The surviving plaintiffs and estate representatives asserted Fourth Amendment claims based on the deputies’ use of deadly force. This type of lawsuit is legally different from an ordinary negligence claim because the plaintiffs must establish a constitutional violation, not merely show that an officer could have acted more carefully. A warning is necessary when interpreting the reported settlement: five plaintiff interests were involved, including Baez’s estate and three surviving occupants, but the public reports do not identify individual payment amounts. It would therefore be inaccurate to assume that the entire sum represents wrongful-death compensation, personal compensation to Baez’s relatives, or damages for any one survivor.
What Happened During the Kissimmee Target Shooting?
The Sheriff’s Office response began with a reported shoplifting incident at the Kissimmee Target on April 27, 2022. The federal court’s January 2026 order states that 28 sheriff’s personnel were at the store and that Yacoub and Koffinas fired a combined 31 rounds into the occupied Audi. Law-enforcement records presented a disputed account in which Baez allegedly attempted to push through or ram law-enforcement vehicles, prompting the deputies to fire. That account was reported by [ClickOrlando in May 2022](https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/05/10/how-the-deadly-osceola-target-deputy-shooting-happened-according-to-the-sheriffs-office/), but it was an attributed account from the Sheriff’s Office—not a fact established by a civil jury.
The consequences extended beyond Baez’s death. The court recorded that Gomez was struck by gunfire three times, Lowe sustained gunshot wounds to both hands with permanent disfigurement, and Joi was detained. None of the plaintiffs was prosecuted for a crime arising from the events. Those injuries provide a concrete reason the settlement cannot accurately be analyzed as a single wrongful-death payment to one family.
How Courts Evaluate Damages and Settlement Tradeoffs in Police-Shooting Cases
Damages in a civil-rights shooting case may depend on the claims permitted by governing law and the proof available for each plaintiff. An estate may seek recoverable losses associated with the death, while surviving occupants may claim medical expenses, pain and suffering, permanent impairment, emotional harm, lost income, or other compensable injuries. Attorney fees may also be significant in §1983 litigation, although the public reports here do not disclose how fees, costs, liens, or expenses are handled. Allocation is especially important when the injuries differ. Gomez’s three gunshot wounds present a different damages profile from Lowe’s wounds to both hands and permanent disfigurement.
Joi’s detention presents another distinct claim, while Baez’s estate represents the fatality. A global $1 million agreement may resolve all these claims together, but it does not show what amount the parties attributed to death, physical injury, detention, fees, or litigation costs. Trial offers the possibility of a larger verdict but carries the risk of no recovery, post-trial motions, and appellate delay. Settlement generally provides greater certainty and finality, though it may require broad releases and may prevent further claims against covered parties. Because the agreement itself has not been publicly disclosed, readers should not assume which claims were released or whether any plaintiff preserved rights against other potential parties.
Qualified Immunity, Summary Judgment, and the Limits of the Court’s Ruling
On January 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Gregory Presnell denied the deputies’ request for summary judgment and qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment claims. Construing disputed facts in the plaintiffs’ favor, as required at that stage, the court held that a reasonable jury could find the deputies’ actions excessive and unreasonable. That decision was important because it allowed the central claims against the deputies to proceed, but it was not a final finding that either deputy violated the Constitution. Summary judgment asks whether a genuine dispute requires a trial; it does not authorize the judge to resolve contested evidence in favor of the party seeking judgment.
A finding that a reasonable jury could side with the plaintiffs is legally different from an actual jury verdict holding the defendants liable. The court did grant summary judgment on the Monell claim against the sheriff in his official capacity. Monell claims require proof that a governmental policy, custom, or qualifying institutional failure caused the constitutional injury. The dismissal of that theory narrowed the lawsuit even though the individual Fourth Amendment claims remained. Treating the January ruling as a complete victory for either side would overlook that split result.
Who Is Paying the $1 Million Settlement?
The Sheriff’s Office stated that payment would come from the Florida Sheriffs Risk Management Fund on behalf of the deputies and the Sheriff’s Office, according to WFTV. The agency emphasized that the money would not be paid directly by Osceola County taxpayers.
This distinction resembles an insurer-funded settlement in a private personal-injury case: a risk pool may issue the payment on behalf of covered parties even though those parties remain the named defendants. It does not, by itself, reveal the settlement’s allocation, establish personal liability, or prove that any defendant admitted wrongdoing.
The Grand Jury Review and the Eleventh Circuit Appeal
A state grand jury did not indict the deputies, although its public report criticized training and communication, as [WFTV reported in February 2024](https://www.wftv.com/news/local/grand-jury-does-not-recommend-charges-after-deadly-deputy-involved-shooting/CCTT7V62KFF6LEP6UT3PURT4ZU/). The federal court also noted that no indictments were returned. That result did not decide the civil excessive-force claims: a decision not to indict is not a finding that the force was lawful under the Fourth Amendment, and criminal and civil proceedings apply different legal standards.
The deputies appealed the qualified-immunity denial to the Eleventh Circuit on January 23, 2026. The appeal was docketed as [No. 26-10244](https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/ca11/26-10244). The later settlement reporting states that the litigation closed, avoiding the scheduled jury trial after the district court had allowed the disputed Fourth Amendment claims to proceed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Jayden Baez’s family receive the entire $1 million?
The public reporting does not establish that. Baez’s estate representatives and three surviving occupants were plaintiffs, and no public allocation has been disclosed.
Did the settlement mean the deputies admitted liability?
No admission has been publicly reported. The settlement text is not publicly available, so it is unknown whether it contains a no-admission clause.
Did a court find that the deputies used excessive force?
No final liability finding was entered. The court ruled that a reasonable jury could find the force excessive when disputed facts were viewed in the plaintiffs’ favor, allowing the Fourth Amendment claims to proceed.
Why did the criminal grand jury’s decision not end the civil case?
The absence of an indictment did not determine whether the force violated the plaintiffs’ federal civil rights. Criminal charging decisions and §1983 civil claims involve different standards, procedures, and potential remedies.
Who will fund the settlement?
According to the Sheriff’s Office statement reported by WFTV, the Florida Sheriffs Risk Management Fund will pay on behalf of the deputies and Sheriff’s Office rather than the payment coming directly from Osceola County taxpayers.