case

At its core, a civil suit is about money. Nobody pleads guilty. Nobody goes to prison. Somebody either pays somebody else or doesn’t.

That’s why roughly 95% of civil suits nationwide reach a settlement ahead of or during trial, legal experts say. Pretrial discovery is usually comprehensive and mediation can produce agreements. Trials are costly, and plaintiffs and defendants alike overwhelmingly prefer to eliminate the risk of an all-or-nothing jury verdict by agreeing on a compromise dollar figure.

That’s also why the case brought by the family of deceased Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs against the Angels has surprised some legal experts. A recent one-day settlement conference between lawyers went nowhere, and both sides are focused on a trial, which begins Monday in Orange County Superior Court with opening statements and witness testimony.

Skaggs was found dead in his hotel room in Southlake, Texas, on July 1, 2019, before the Angels were scheduled to start a series against the Texas Rangers. The Tarrant County medical examiner conducted an autopsy and found that in addition to the opioids, Skaggs had a blood-alcohol level of 0.12. The autopsy determined he died from asphyxia after aspirating his own vomit, and that his death was accidental.

Former Angels communications director Eric Kay was sentenced to 22 years in federal prison Tuesday after being convicted of providing the counterfeit oxycodone pills laced with fentanyl that led to the Skaggs’ overdose.

Prosecutors alleged Kay sold opioids to Skaggs and at least five other professional baseball players from 2017 to 2019. Several players testified during the trial about obtaining illicit oxycodone pills from Kay.

The Skaggs family filed their lawsuit in June 2021, alleging the Angels knew, or should have known, that Kay was supplying drugs to Skaggs and other players. Testimony established that Kay was also a longtime user of oxycodone and that the Angels knew it.

The Angels responded by saying that a former federal prosecutor the team hired to conduct an independent investigation into the circumstances that led to Skaggs’ death determined no team executives were aware or informed of any employee providing opioids to any player.

“The lawsuits are entirely without merit and the allegations are baseless and irresponsible,” the Angels said in a statement shortly after the lawsuit was filed. “The Angels organization strongly disagrees with the claims made by the Skaggs family and we will vigorously defend these lawsuits in court.”

The team has not budged from that position even after years of discovery that included more than 50 depositions, a pretrial ruling by the judge that Kay’s conviction cannot be questioned during the civil trial and Judge H. Shaina Colover denying the Angels’ motion for summary judgment by saying, “There is evidence that … Angels baseball had knowledge that Kay was distributing drugs to players and failed to take measures to get him to stop.”

The settlement conference held between lawyers for the Angels and the plaintiffs — which include Skaggs’ widow Carli, mother Debra Hetman and father Darrell Skaggs — merely underscored that the two sides see the case very differently, according to people close to the negotiations not authorized to speak publicly about the case.

Settlement conferences are confidential and the California Evidence Code protects statements and conduct during conferences from being used to prove liability. However, legal experts said it is clear the two sides remain far apart in assessing the value of the case.

“They definitely could have been talking settlement all along,” said Edson K. McClellan, an Irvine lawyer who specializes in high-stakes civil and employment litigation. “I would be surprised if they haven’t engaged in some settlement negotiations.”

Damages sought by the Skaggs family include his projected future earnings and compensation for the pain and anguish the family suffered.

Lawyers for the Skaggs family originally said they were seeking $210 million, although that number has risen during four years of pretrial litigation. A claim by Angels lawyer Todd Theodora in a hearing this summer that the plaintiffs were asking for $1 billion was shot down last week by a person in the Skaggs camp who said “we are not asking anywhere remotely close to that. My god, the whole world would turn upside down.”

Skaggs had unquestionable earning potential. The left-handed former first-round draft pick was only 27 and an established member of the Angels starting rotation when he died. He was making $3.7 million in 2019 and likely would have made at least $5 million in his final year of arbitration before becoming a free agent after the 2020 season.

Although Skaggs posted average statistics — his earned-run average was over 4.00 in each of his seven seasons and his career won-loss record was 28-38 — free-agent contracts for starters under 30 range from three to six years for $15,000 to $25,000 a year. And he could have merited another contract in his mid-30s.

Assuming he remained healthy — Skaggs missed the 2015 season because of Tommy John surgery and had other injuries during his career — experts said a reasonable prediction of future earnings could exceed $100 million. However, his established history of drug use could dampen the projections.

“Speculative projections, making the assumption that he played another 10 years, push an award into nine figures, but honestly, looking at the level of drug abuse, jurors could have doubts,” said Lauren Johnson-Norris, an Orange County-based defense lawyer.

Pain, suffering and mental anguish damages could add to an award either by jury verdict or settlement. Legal experts expect Skaggs’ lawyers — who include nationally renowned Rusty Hardin and Shawn Holley — to point out that losing a husband or a son that your life centered around is worth an award.

Opening statements this week should illustrate why the two sides aren’t close to a settlement.

Skaggs’ lawyers will say the Angels are responsible for his death because they knew Kay was a habitual drug user that procured opioids for players, pointing to evidence that Angels team physician Craig Milhouse prescribed Kay with hydrocodone 15 times from 2009 to 2012.

Also likely to be mentioned will be Angels star Mike Trout who, according to the deposition of former Angels clubhouse attendant Kris Constanti, offered to pay for Kay’s drug rehabilitation in 2018.

The Angels will counter by telling the jury that prosecutors in Kay’s criminal trial concluded he was not acting as an employee when he gave Skaggs the fentanyl-laced oxycodone. Kay was charged and convicted, not the team.

Skaggs and Kay, the Angels will contend, were two men engaging in criminal misconduct on their own time and they concealed it from the team. The Angels lawyers will tell the jury that taking opioids prescribed by a physician during recovery from surgery is vastly different than Skaggs chopping up and snorting counterfeit pills that were not prescribed for him.

Witness testimony will begin after the opening statements, and current and former Angels executives Tim Mead, Tom Taylor and John Carpino are expected to be the first called.

And as the lawyers make their best arguments and witnesses provide testimony in a trial expected to take more than two months, both sides will be silently evaluating whether pursuing a settlement is in their best interest.

An agreement could be reached at any time, abruptly ending court proceedings.

“Sometimes what triggers a settlement is a court ruling or a witness performing well or poorly,” McClellan said. “As the trial unfolds and evidence is actually coming in, risk is brought into focus and makes plaintiffs and defendants evaluate their case in a more clear light.”

When federal prosecutors arrested a man Wednesday for setting a small fire that reignited days later into the deadly Palisades blaze, they suggested the arrest largely settled the matter of blame.

“A single person’s recklessness caused one of the worst fires Los Angeles has ever seen,” Bill Essayli, acting United States attorney for Central California, said as he announced the arrest of Jonathan Rinderknecht, a 29-year-old Uber driver.

But the new details they offered about the cause of the fire only added to residents’ anger and dismay about how city officials handled the fire that killed 12 people and destroyed more than 6,700 structures across Pacific Palisades and Malibu. It also renewed calls for City Hall to be held accountable.

The Santa Ynez Reservoir in Pacific Palisades was going through maintenance and empty during the Palisades fire. Photographed on Wednesday, Jan. 29, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Until this week, the focus of Palisades residents has been on a reservoir that was supposed to be a key source of water for the neighborhood being dry and other issues related to the fire response. But federal investigators concluded Wednesday that L.A. firefighters thought they had put out the small fire Rinderknecht allegedly set Jan. 1 only for it to smolder and burn underground and then rekindle in heavy winds Jan. 7.

This latest revelation is fueling debate over whether the city of L.A. or the state of California can be found civilly liable for its role in the fire.

Already, a flurry of complaints have been filed over the last 10 months accusing various L.A and California officials of failing to prepare for and respond to the fire.

Most legal experts agree that cases against government entities are tough because California law gives public officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection. Some argue that a criminal case against Rinderknecht could ultimately hurt residents’ civil complaints.

“Now those civil cases are dead in the water, because you have an arsonist,” said Neama Rahmani, president of the L.A.-based law firm West Coast Trial Lawyers, which is handling Eaton fire cases against Edison.

“That ultimately means that the already weak civil cases against the government became even weaker,” he said, “because now you have the person who’s really at fault for all this.”

EPA crews comb the ruins for hazardous material at a home on Miami Way, that was burned in the Palisades Fire, Thursday, February 6, 2025.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

But lawyers suing the government on behalf of Pacific Palisades residents disagree, and maintain that Rinderknecht’s arrest does not undermine their case.

Just hours after federal law enforcement officials announced Rinderknecht’s arrest, attorneys representing thousands of Palisades fire victims filed a new master complaint against the city of L.A. and the state of California, plus about a dozen new defendants, including Southern California Edison, Charter Communications and AT&T.

“We never allege that the state or the city started the Palisades fire,” said Alexander “Trey” Robertson, an attorney representing 3,300 Palisades fire victims. Rather, he said, their case against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and the California Department of Parks and Recreation hinged on the lack of preparations in advance of the fire and the response after the fire started. “That has nothing to do with what started the Lachman fire,” he said. “It is what transpired after that fact.”

The 198-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, was not a response to Rinderknecht’s arrest or the new details provided by federal prosecutors. Wednesday just happened to be the deadline a judge set for lawyers to file an omnibus complaint on behalf of 10,000 residents and business owners.

Robertson noted that his complaint did not include the Los Angeles Fire Department: California government code gives it broad immunity against claims of negligent firefighting.

But Robertson argued that the LADWP is liable, because the draining of the Santa Ynez reservoir resulted in fire hydrants running dry and their energized power lines came down on homes and vegetation that ignited additional fires. And the state of California is also liable, he said, because it did not inspect its land in the days between the Lachman and Palisades fires to ensure that no smoldering embers or residual heat remained that could reignite during the predicted Santa Ana wind event.

Robertson said there is case law that holds that a public entity is liable for a “dangerous condition” allowed to exist on its property that causes a fire.

“We allege that the embers from the Lachman Fire which the state allowed to burn for six days on its land (Topanga State Park) constituted a ‘dangerous condition of public property.’ This claim is expressly authorized by statute and not barred by the immunity statutes.”

Rahmani, whose law firm is handling cases against Edison in the Eaton fire, said that would be a very tough ‘dangerous condition’ case.

“What was the dangerous condition here that caused this fire?” he asked. “You’re saying the state has a legal duty. Think of all the hundreds of thousands of square miles of state parks in California to inspect the land. I don’t think any judge would say that there’s a legal duty to inspect forest land for smoldering fire.”

David Levine, a professor of law at UC San Francisco, said Wednesday’s arrest ultimately didn’t seem to change the limited liability public officials have in a fire through government immunity.

“It would be hard to prove liability on that because they’re going to have so much protection due to immunity,” Levine said. “Because these are public entities, they’re not going to be liable for punitive damages.”

Still, Levine said, plaintiff lawyers’ could try to thread the needle by using a ‘dangerous condition’ exception. “The statutes allow for that kind of a claim, but you have to prove it,” he said. “That’s a factual matter that would have to be developed.”

Rahmani said he always thought the cases against government entities in the Palisades fire were weak because California statute gives officials broad immunity from failing to provide fire protection.

“I personally feel that they’re leading people on, giving them hope that does not exist,” Rahmani said.

The emergence of a criminal suspect in the Palisades fire further hindered attorneys’ case, Rahmani said, because judges and juries tend to put all the fault on the criminal, even if there was a claim for negligence. “Because you have an intentional criminal act,” he said, “liability would have to be apportioned between the bad actors.”

Jurors, he said, already tended to be reluctant to put a lot of liability on government defendants. “They’re thinking, ‘Hey, my taxes are gonna go up, who’s gonna pay for all this?’.. That’s why it’s very hard to get massive verdicts against government entities.”

Asked about potential liability for the state or other jurisdictions in the Palisades fire resulting from the reignition of an earlier fire, California Gov. Newsom said, “We will look at the facts and judge on the basis of those facts.”

“When it comes to the issue of fire liability, I know a thing or two, going back to Paradise…” Newsom added. “This is done without political interference. The facts need to be pursued.”

Some lawyers expect that claims will be filed against Uber, Rinderknecht’s employer.

“Obviously, Uber is going to fight that,” Rahmani said. “In terms of someone to go after, Uber seems to me to be the only entity, and that’s gonna be a tough argument.”

Legal experts appear to agree on one thing: Even if Rinderknecht is convicted, he cannot possibly compensate the thousands of residents in the affluent coastal neighborhood of Pacific Palisades who lost loved ones and homes.

“I’ll assume he’s not an heir of Elon Musk or Estee Lauder,” Levine said. “The private and public loss is so vast here. Whatever assets this guy has, I would say, wouldn’t even qualify as a drop in the bucket.”

“Criminal justice — having someone be held accountable — is important,” Rahmani said. “But obviously, as far as money in the bank, it’s not going to be helpful.”

If an arsonist was found responsible in the Eaton fire, Rahmani said, that would have a huge impact on legal claims.

“That would be a home run for Edison,” Rahmani said. “That would save them and the California Fire fund billions of dollars, because then they wouldn’t be a fault. It wouldn’t be their tower. It wouldn’t be the electrical fire. This sort of arson with an accelerant, it would completely change the game, and the value of those claims would go to almost nothing.”

Times Staff Writer Daniel Miller contributed to this report

A Texas court has issued a stay of execution for Robert Roberson, a man whose 2003 murder conviction has raised serious questions about the validity of “shaken baby syndrome” as a medical diagnosis.

Thursday’s decision arrived with only a week remaining until Roberson’s scheduled execution date on October 16.

Roberson, a 58-year-old autistic man, was accused of having killed his two-year-old daughter Nikki Michelle Curtis in January 2002, after he brought her to a hospital emergency room unconscious.

He has maintained that Nikki had been sick and fell from her bed overnight. But prosecutors argued that her head trauma must have been caused by “shaken baby syndrome”, a diagnosis popularised in the late 1990s as evidence of physical abuse in infants and toddlers.

But that diagnosis has been increasingly rejected, as doctors and medical researchers point out that the symptoms of “shaken baby syndrome” — namely, bleeding or swelling in the eyes or brain — can be caused by other conditions.

Roberson’s defence team has argued that Nikki suffered from chronic pneumonia in the lead-up to her death, and the medications she was given, including codeine, contributed to her death.

In Thursday’s decision, the judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to pause his execution in light of a similar case being overturned in 2024.

Judge Bert Richardson contrasted the shifting nature of the medical research with the finality of execution in his concurring opinion.

“There is a delicate balance and tension in our criminal justice system between the finality of judgment and its accuracy based on our ever-advancing scientific understanding,” Judge Richardson wrote.

“A death sentence is clearly final and, once carried out, hindsight is useless. Thus, when moving forward in such a way, we should require the highest standards of accuracy so that we can act with a reliable degree of certainty.”

But the court limited its judgement to reopening Roberson’s petition for habeas corpus, which questions the constitutionality of a person’s imprisonment.

It declined to reconsider Roberson’s case as a whole. That prompted some of the judges on the court to issue a partial dissent.

Judge David Schenck, for instance, argued that “a new trial is necessary and mandated by our Constitution”, given the new evidence that has emerged in the two decades since Roberson was sentenced to death.

“The merits of Roberson’s claims and the cumulative effect of the evidence Roberson presents — in his fifth application as well as his previous and subsequent applications — would be more properly and more swiftly assessed at this point by a jury in a new trial,” Schenck said.

He added that a new trial would also offer the state of Texas “an opportunity to present this case on its merits”.

Still, some judges on the panel said they were opposed to reopening the case, arguing that the shift in medical consensus did not rule out an act of violence in Nikki’s death.

“Arguably credible and reliable scientific evidence still exists to suggest that shaking a child can cause serious injury or death,” Judge Kevin Yeary wrote in his opinion.

This is not the first time that Roberson’s case has been delayed. He has spent nearly 23 years on death row and was also slated to be executed a year ago, in October 2024.

But that execution date was scuttled in an extraordinary series of events. With his execution scheduled for October 17 of that year, a bipartisan group of legislators in the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence agreed to issue a subpoena for Roberson on October 21 — effectively setting up a battle between the legislature’s will and the court’s.

The subpoen sparked a court case about the separation of powers in Texas: A witness could not answer a legislative subpoena if the justice system executed him first.

Further, the members of the Texas House committee had argued that a 2013 state law barring the use of “junk science” in court cases had failed to be applied in Roberson’s case.

The case reached the Texas Supreme Court, which halted Roberson’s execution while the matter was resolved. Execution dates are set with at least 90 days’ notice in Texas, resulting in a prolonged pause.

On July 16, after appeals from Roberson’s defence team, a new execution date was set for this month.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has accused critics of Roberson’s sentence of “interfering with the capital punishment proceedings” and has repeatedly pledged to push forward with the execution.

But even those involved in Roberson’s original capital murder trial have sought to see his sentence overturned.

Brian Wharton, the lead investigator in Roberson’s case, had once testified in favour of the prosecution. But last year, he told the Texas House committee that he supported Roberson’s appeal, given the new evidence that has come to light.

“He is an innocent man, and we are very close to killing him for something he did not do,” Wharton said.

On Thursday, one of the jurors who helped convict Roberson also published an opinion column in the Houston Chronicle, asserting that she was “wrong” to side with the prosecution.

“If we on the jury knew then what I know now — about the new evidence of Nikki’s missed pneumonia, how her breathing would have been affected by the Phenergan and codeine doctors gave her that last week, the signs of sepsis, and all the things that were wrong with the version of shaken baby syndrome used in the case — we would have had a lot more to discuss,” Terre Compton wrote.

“Based on all that has come out since the trial, I am 100% certain that Robert Roberson did not murder his child.”

Texas has executed 596 people since 1982, the most of any state.

When she was called last year to testify against a top Los Angeles police official, Sgt. Jessica Bell assumed she would be asked about the AirTag.

Bell found the Apple tracking device under her friend’s car while on a weekend getaway in Palm Springs in 2023. The friend suspected her former domestic partner, Alfred “Al” Labrada, who was then an assistant chief in the Los Angeles Police Department, had secretly planted the AirTag to monitor her movements after they broke up. The women contacted San Bernardino County authorities, who opened an investigation.

By the time Bell, 44, testified last year, prosecutors had declined to charge Labrada with any crime, but his ascent through the uppermost ranks of the LAPD had already gone sideways. Once considered a leading candidate to become the city’s next police chief, Labrada faced being fired for allegedly lying to LAPD investigators and trying to cover up his actions.

Disciplinary proceedings against LAPD officers play out like mini-trials, held behind closed doors under state laws that shield the privacy of officers. According to her attorney, Bell figured that her role would be limited to describing the AirTag she found — and that anything she said would remain sealed.

Instead, according to her lawyer, she faced a line of questioning that turned personal, with Labrada’s attorney grilling her about problems in her former marriage.

The disciplinary panel found Labrada guilty of planting the tracking device, and he resigned from the department. In the months since, details of Bell’s testimony spread among colleagues, according to a lawsuit she filed against the city of Los Angeles this year.

The suit is one of dozens filed by LAPD employees in recent years alleging they faced blowback after reporting suspected wrongdoing. Bell and others claim testimony that was supposed to remain confidential at so-called board of rights hearings or in internal affairs interviews was later used against them.

In the months that followed Bell’s testimony against Labrada, according to her lawsuit, she was denied a position in the department’s training division. Bell said through her attorney that she has come under department investigation for at least three separate complaints, including one alleging that she hadn’t been truthful at Labrada’s disciplinary hearing.

Her supposed lie? Testifying that her daughter had been traumatized by the ordeal of finding the hidden tracking device.

Bell — known professionally as Jessica Zamorano, according to her lawsuit — declined to comment. She said through her lawyer that internal affairs investigators told her that Labrada made the complaints.

The accusation that she lied triggered a separate investigation by the state Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, the law enforcement accreditation board, putting her at risk of losing her police officer license.

Bell also lodged a complaint with the inspector general’s office, writing that she was “initially scared to come forward because I feared retaliation for reporting and cooperating with the investigation against Labrada.”

Bell’s attorney Nicole Castronovo said she was disgusted that the LAPD was allowing Labrada to “weaponize Internal Affairs to continue waging this campaign of terror on my client.”

Al Labrada, a former Los Angeles Police Department assistant chief, holds a news conference in Beverly Hills on Oct. 17, 2023, to address allegations he used an Apple AirTag to secretly monitor the movements of his former romantic partner.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

Labrada confirmed to The Times that he had filed several complaints against Bell and Dawn Silva, his former domestic partner, who is also an LAPD officer.

He said he hoped the department would look into the veracity of statements the two women made during his disciplinary hearing. He said the allegations against Bell were based on his conversations with her ex-husband, who made him question her truthfulness. The disciplinary board wouldn’t let him call the ex-husband or others as witnesses, effectively torpedoing his case, Labrada said.

Labrada acknowledges the AirTag was his, but maintains he did not hide it to track his former girlfriend.

“This is all about financial gain for Ms. Silva and Jessica — that’s all this is,” he said. “In my opinion, she made falsified statements not only in the police report but also in the board of rights.”

He has filed his own a lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles and former Police Chief Michel Moore, alleging Moore conspired to oust a rival for the chief’s job.

Labrada was cleared of wrongdoing in the AirTag affair by the state law enforcement accreditation board, an outcome that allows him to retain his license to carry a badge in the state.

Labrada has been publicly outspoken about what he sees as his mistreatment at the hands of the department, making numerous appearances on law enforcement-friendly podcasts to plug a forthcoming tell-all book about his time as an L.A. cop.

He contends his case was handled differently than those of other senior officials accused of misconduct, who because of their close relationships to past chiefs were allowed to keep their jobs or to retire quietly with their pensions.

Retaliation among officers has been a problem in the LAPD for decades — and past reports have been critical of how the department investigates such cases.

The LAPD has long had a policy that forbids retaliation against officers who report misconduct, and officers who feel they’ve been wronged can report problems to the department’s ombudsman, or file complaints through internal affairs or the inspector general’s office.

Retaliation can take on many forms, including poor job evaluations, harassment, demotions and even termination, according to lawyers and LAPD personnel who have sued.

Fearing consequences, some officers have taken to posting about misconduct anonymously on social media or recruiting surrogates to call in to Police Commission hearings to raise allegations of wrongdoing on their behalf.

Sometimes, witnesses won’t come forward for fear of being disciplined for violating department rules for immediately reporting misconduct.

Others argue that the department’s disciplinary system allows opportunistic officers to take advantage of complaints in order to settle grievances with colleagues, distract from their own problems or earn a big payday.

LAPD Cmdr. Lillian Carranza — who has sued the department for calling out questionably counted crime statistics and misogyny, and also been sued over her supervision of others — declined to discuss Bell’s case, but said that, in general, after 36 years on the job, “I do not see the department doing anything to protect employees who are whistleblowers or report misconduct.”

“What I have seen is that they are shunned to the side, they are [labeled] as problem employees, and pretty soon, they are persona non grata,” Carranza said.

While the department takes all public complaints, supervisors can be selective about what gets investigated, according to Carranza, who alleged the process is often colored by favoritism or fear of being targeted by the police union.

“At the end of the day, the LAPD cannot investigate itself — we cannot investigate ourselves because we have too many competing interests,” she said. “We need an outside agency to investigate us, especially with things that are serious misconduct and they are not caught on body-camera videos.”

Bell alleged that the retaliation against her has stretched on for months.

A 15-year department veteran, Bell has worked in patrol for most of her career, with brief stints in vice and internal affairs. When an opening came up at the training division, where Silva also works, she put in for it and was picked for the spot.

Her former captain at Olympic Division sent out a glowing email just as she was about the leave the station in early 2024, asking her colleagues to join him in congratulating their “beloved” sergeant. Suddenly, her lawsuit said, the offer was rescinded with little explanation.

She alleged in her lawsuit that a close friend of Labrada’s pulled strings to keep her out of the position.

The LAPD higher-up who blocked her transfer, Bell wrote in her claim to the LAPD inspector general, “consistently calls and checks on Labrada and offers his vacation house to him.”

Writer Alex O’Keefe, whom police detained last month in a viral seating dispute on a New York City train, is off the hook for alleged disorderly conduct.

A New York City administrative judge dismissed a civil summons against former “The Bear” writer O’Keefe on Tuesday, ending its case against him. O’Keefe informed his Instagram followers that “the charges against me were dismissed” and “deemed by the judge facially insufficient.”

“That’s legal-ese for [‘BS’],” O’Keefe says in the video as he stands outside the courthouse. “They never had anything on me … they were trying to make an example of me.”

O’Keefe attorney Lindsay Lewis said in a Wednesday statement that the writer’s legal team “commends the Court for reaching the only just and correct result based on the law — a complete dismissal of the case.”

Last month, O’Keefe uploaded videos of the Sept. 18 incident to Instagram. He documented MTA police in New York placing him in handcuffs for alleged disorderly conduct. In the caption of his post, the speechwriter — who is Black — alleged that officials detained him on a train after an “old white woman” complained about how he was sitting. He claimed the woman took issue with the “one Black person on the train.”

The MTA Police Department confirmed it responded to a “report of a disorderly passenger” at the Fordham Metro-North station in the Bronx. A conductor reported that a 31-year-old passenger occupied two seats and “refused to remove his feet from one of the seats.”

Police accused O’Keefe of placing both his legs across an adjacent seat, violating the rail line’s rules. They also accused him of refusing police directions to exit the train onto the platform and to board a following train. O’Keefe delayed service “for several hundred other riders for six minutes,” police alleged, and was handcuffed and removed from the train.

In his Instagram post about the incident, O’Keefe alleged that a friend of the woman who scolded his manner of sitting told him, “You’re not the minority anymore.” He added that police “arrested” him without “even talking to the Karen who reported the one Black person on the train” and that only other Black passengers recorded the dispute.

Police refuted that and said O’Keefe “was not placed under arrest at any time” during the incident.

O’Keefe doubled down on his previous denials of wrongdoing in a statement shared Tuesday, writing, “I was harassed and detained for sitting while Black.

“Today, the court made a clear judgement: I did nothing illegal on September 18. Like millions of New Yorkers, I was going to work to earn a living and support my family,” he added. “Even though this absurd case was dismissed today, I will continue to defend the civil rights of every New Yorker. Every worker has a right to a safe commute.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former FBI Director James Comey pleaded not guilty Wednesday to face a criminal case that has thrown a spotlight on the Justice Department’s efforts to target adversaries of President Trump.

The arraignment is expected to be brief, but the moment is nonetheless loaded with significance given that the case has amplified concerns the Justice Department is being weaponized in pursuit of Trump’s political enemies and is operating at the behest of a White House determined to seek retribution for perceived wrongs against the president.

Comey entered a not guilty plea through his lawyer at the federal courthouse in Alexandria, Va., to allegations that he lied to Congress five years go. The plea kick-starts a process of legal wrangling in which defense lawyers will almost certainly move to get the indictment dismissed before trial, possibly by arguing the case amounts to a selective or vindictive prosecution.

The indictment two weeks ago followed an extraordinary chain of events that saw Trump publicly implore Attorney General Pam Bondi to take action against Comey and other perceived adversaries. The Republican president also replaced the veteran attorney who had been overseeing the investigation with Lindsey Halligan, a White House aide who had never previously served as a federal prosecutor. Halligan rushed to file charges before a legal deadline lapsed despite warnings from other lawyers in the office that the evidence was insufficient for an indictment.

What the indictment says

The two-count indictment alleges that Comey made a false statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Sept. 30, 2020, by denying he had authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source to the news media and that he obstructed a congressional proceeding. Comey has denied any wrongdoing and has said he was looking forward to a trial. The indictment does not identify the associate or say what information may have been discussed with the media, making it challenging to assess the strength of the evidence or to even fully parse the allegations.

Though an indictment is typically just the start of a protracted court process, the Justice Department has trumpeted the development itself as something of a win, regardless of the outcome. Trump administration officials are likely to point to any conviction as proof the case was well-justified, but an acquittal or even dismissal may also be held up as further support for their long-running contention the criminal justice system is stacked against them.

The judge was nominated by Biden

The judge randomly assigned to the case, Michael Nachmanoff, was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration and is a former chief federal defender. Known for methodical preparation and a cool temperament, the judge and his background have already drawn Trump’s attention, with the president deriding him as a “Crooked Joe Biden appointed Judge.”

Besides Comey, the Justice Department is also investigating other foes of the president, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California.

Several Comey family members arrived in court Wednesday morning ahead of the arraignment, including his daughter Maurene, who was fired by the Justice Department earlier this year from her position as a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, as well as Troy Edwards Jr., a son-in-law of Comey’s who minutes after Comey was indicted resigned his job as a prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia — the same office that filed the charges.

Trump and Comey’s fraught relationship

The indictment was the latest chapter in a long-broken relationship between Trump and Comey.

Trump arrived in office in January 2017 as Comey, appointed to the FBI director job by President Obama four years earlier, was overseeing an investigation into ties between Russia and Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.

The dynamic was fraught from the start, with Comey briefing Trump weeks before he took office on the existence of uncorroborated and sexually salacious gossip in a dossier of opposition research compiled by a former British spy.

In their first several private interactions, Comey would later reveal, Trump asked his FBI director to pledge his loyalty to him and to drop an FBI investigation into his administration’s first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Comey said Trump also asked him to announce that Trump himself was not under investigation as part of the broader inquiry into Russian election interference, something Comey did not do.

Comey was abruptly fired in May 2017 while at an event in Los Angeles, with Trump later saying he was thinking about “this Russia thing” when he decided to terminate him. The firing was investigated by Justice Department special counsel Robert Mueller as an act of potential obstruction of justice.

Comey in 2018 published a memoir, “A Higher Loyalty,” that painted Trump in deeply unflattering ways, likening him to a mafia don and characterizing him as unethical and “untethered to truth.”

Trump, for his part, continued to angrily vent at Comey as the Russia investigation led by Mueller dominated headlines for the next two years and shadowed his first administration. On social media, he repeatedly claimed Comey should face charges for “treason” — an accusation Comey dismissed as “dumb lies” — and called him an “untruthful slime ball.”

Tucker, Richer and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. Tucker reported from Washington.

A Los Angeles court orders the pharma giant to pay damages to the family of Mae Moore, who died of mesothelioma in 2021.

Johnson & Johnson has been ordered to pay $966m to the family of a woman who died from mesothelioma, finding the company liable in the latest lawsuit alleging its baby powder products cause cancer.

The court in Los Angeles handed down the ruling late on Monday.

The pharmaceutical giant has to pay the family of Mae Moore, who died in 2021. The family sued the company the same year, claiming Johnson & Johnson’s talc baby powder products contained asbestos fibres that caused her rare cancer. The jury ordered the company to pay $16m in compensatory damages and $950m in punitive damages, according to court filings.

The verdict could be reduced on appeal as the United States Supreme Court has found that punitive damages should generally be no more than nine times compensatory damages.

Erik Haas, J&J’s worldwide vice president of litigation, said in a statement that the company plans to immediately appeal, calling the verdict “egregious and unconstitutional”.

“The plaintiff lawyers in this Moore case based their arguments on ‘junk science’ that never should have been presented to the jury,” Haas charged.

The company has said its products are safe, do not contain asbestos and do not cause cancer. This isn’t the first time Johnson & Johnson was ordered to pay damages to a family after a lawsuit that alleged a link between cancer and its baby powder products.

In 2016, a Missouri court ordered the company to pay $72m to the family of Jacqueline Fox, who died of ovarian cancer.

In 2024, Johnson & Johnson was also ordered to pay $700m to settle lawsuits alleging it misled consumers about safety after an investigation brought by 43 state attorneys general.

J&J stopped selling talc-based baby powder in the US in 2020, switching to a cornstarch product. By 2023, it had ended talc-based baby powder sales as well.

Trey Branham, one of the attorneys representing Moore’s family, said after the verdict that his team is “hopeful that Johnson & Johnson will finally accept responsibility for these senseless deaths”.

Thousands of lawsuits

J&J is facing lawsuits from more than 67,000 plaintiffs who say they were diagnosed with cancer after using its baby powder and other talc products, according to court filings. The number of lawsuits alleging talc caused mesothelioma is a small subset of these cases with the vast majority involving ovarian cancer claims.

J&J has sought to resolve the litigation through bankruptcy, a proposal that has been rejected three times by federal courts.

Lawsuits alleging talc caused mesothelioma were not part of the last bankruptcy proposal. The company has previously settled some of those claims but has not struck a nationwide settlement, so many lawsuits over mesothelioma have proceeded to trial in state courts in recent months.

In the past year, J&J has been hit with several substantial verdicts in mesothelioma cases, but Monday’s is among the largest. The company has won some of the mesothelioma trials, including last week in South Carolina, where a jury found J&J not liable.

ATLANTA — The head of a nonpartisan agency tasked with finding a prosecutor to take over the Georgia election interference case against President Trump and others is asking for more time after a judge set a two-week deadline for that appointment to be made.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who’s overseeing the case, wrote in an order Friday that if the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council doesn’t appoint a new prosecutor or request a “particularized extension” within 14 days, he would dismiss it. The fate of the case has been in limbo since Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis was disqualified from continuing the prosecution over an “appearance of impropriety” caused by a romantic relationship she had with the lead prosecutor.

Pete Skandalakis, executive director of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council, said in a court filing Monday that his office has yet to receive the physical case file and does not expect to receive it for about four weeks. He asked McAfee to reconsider his order or to give him at least 90 days after he receives the case file to appoint a new prosecutor.

Without the case file, Skandalakis wrote that he “cannot intelligently answer questions of anyone requested to take the appointment or to do his own due diligence in finding a prosecutor who is not encumbered by a significant appearance of impropriety.”

He noted the case is one of 21 waiting to have a prosecutor assigned by his office. So far in 2025, he wrote, 448 criminal matters have been referred to his office because of a conflict of interest or a recusal by the relevant elected prosecutor.

“Each case requires individual review and assignment due to the unique nature of conflicts and the facts and circumstances of the particular case,” he wrote. Because of the complexity of the election case and the extensive resources required to handle it, “it will require time” to find someone to take it on, the filing says.

Even if a new prosecutor is named, it is unlikely that any prosecution against Trump could move forward while he is the sitting president. But there are 14 other people still facing charges in the case, including former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani.

If a new prosecutor is named, that person could continue on the track that Willis had charted, decide to pursue only some charges or dismiss the case altogether.

Willis announced the indictment against Trump and 18 others in August 2023. She used the state’s anti-racketeering law to allege a wide-ranging conspiracy to try to illegally overturn Trump’s narrow loss to Democrat Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.

Defense attorneys sought Willis’ removal after the revelation in January 2024 that she had engaged in a romantic relationship with Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor she had hired to lead the case. The defense attorneys said the relationship created a conflict of interest, alleging that Willis personally profited from the case when Wade used his earnings to pay for vacations the pair took.

McAfee rebuked Willis, saying in an order in March 2024 that her actions showed a “tremendous lapse in judgment.” But he said he did not find a conflict of interest that would disqualify Willis. He ultimately ruled that Willis could remain on the case if Wade resigned, which the special prosecutor did hours later.

Defense attorneys appealed that ruling, and the Georgia Court of Appeals removed Willis from the case in December, citing an “appearance of impropriety.” The high court last month declined to hear Willis’ appeal, putting the case in the lap of the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

“Maigret,” premiering Sunday on PBS, is the fourth British series (plus one failed pilot) to be titled “Maigret,” after its main character, Georges Simenon’s Paris-based police detective. As I’ve written here before, he’s my favorite fictional detective, both because the stories serve my Francophilia — they provide a virtual map of the city and beyond — and for his ordinariness as a middle-aged, middle-class, happily married man, who is thoughtful, kind, uncomfortable around the rich and sympathetic to the poor, including many who might be counted among the criminal class. You wouldn’t call him melancholy, exactly, but he feels the weight of the job, of his difficult superiors, of the wicked world. He’s an honest policeman who describes himself as a “functionnaire,” a civil servant, and whose belief in justice might sometimes lead him to letting a malefactor escape. And he likes his food, and he likes his drink.

That the new series, starring Benjamin Wainwright (“Belgravia: The Next Chapter”), is set in the present day is not unusual. With 75 novels and 28 stories published between 1931 and 1972, it’s impossible to locate the character in any specific time anyway; most adaptions are set in the time in which they’re filmed, but even the period adaptations don’t necessarily reflect the year of publication.

Nor does the fact that “Maigret” 2025 swerves from the original texts distinguish it from films and series that have preceded it — most of them, obviously, made in France, where Maigret has many times appeared on the big screen, notably portrayed by French film icon Jean Gabin and recently by Gérard Depardieu in a well-regarded 2022 film, also called “Maigret,” as well as two long-running television series. The latter, another “Maigret,” which ran from 1991 to 2005, starred Bruno Cremer, widely regarded as the best — or among the best, to not start any arguments — of the screen Maigrets. Maigret series have also appeared in Russia, Italy and Japan; America, to the extent we’ve been interested, has imported English-language adaptations from the U.K., which is once again the case.

What’s different this time is that Maigret himself has been given a makeover, made younger, buffer, sexier, slightly more of an action hero, with the beard often assigned to the modern police detective. If you come to the series with a love for Simenon’s character — envisioned by the author as “a large powerfully built gentleman [with] a pipe, a bowler hat, a thick overcoat” and more or less faithfully represented in previous films and series — you’ll have to overlook this transformation, or else look away. The question of whether Wainwright’s Maigret is, you know, really Maigret, is one surely to be debated among the fans.

Meanwhile, there are other Maigrets waiting for you by way of comparison, officially or unofficially streaming. What follows is a short guide (mostly) to the English-language “Maigrets”; each has it charms and most are recommended.

A new “Maigret” has arrived on PBS, starring Andrea Lucas (Kerrie Hayes), from left, Karim Lapointe (Reda Elazouar), Jules Maigret (Benjamin Wainwright), Joseph Torrence (Blake Harrison) and Berthe Janvier (Shaniqua Okwok).

(Csaba Aknay / Playground Entertainment; Masterpiece)

Pierre Renoir, ‘Night at the Crossroads’ (1932)

The first screen Maigret, included here for historical interest and because a subtitled version is available on YouTube. Directed by Jean Renoir the year after the novel was published — Simenon, fast out of the gate, published 10 Maigret novels that year — and starring his brother Pierre as Maigret, the film is moody, foggy, dark and slow and has the advantage of actually representing its period. Pierre Renoir’s Maigret is stoical and efficient, and will not be vamped by Winna Winifried’s peculiar femme fatale, as hard as she tries.

Charles Laughton, ‘The Man on the Eiffel Tower’ (1950)

From the novel “La Tête d’un homme (A Man’s Head),” also from 1931, the first English-language adaptation lists “the city of Paris,” on whose streets it was filmed, among the cast in the opening credits. (It’s a trip in time and space.) Laughton plays Maigret with dry humor, though he’s capable of being roused when exasperated or angry, as he often will be here. Co-producer and co-star Franchot Tone chews the beautiful scenery (in color) in a battle of wits Maigret and you both know he’s bound to lose. Directed by Burgess Meredith, who also plays a murder suspect, it adds a thrilling chase up the actual Eiffel Tower, no special effects required. (Laughton isn’t doing the chasing.) Dark film noir compositions alternate with bright sunny street scenes. Stream on Tubi.

Rupert Davies, ‘Maigret’ (1960)

Fifty-two episodes across four seasons were made of this BBC series, shot on video, as many British series were then, and so acted largely on soundstages, which suits a character whose job consists largely of asking questions and listening to other people talk; long interrogations, often lasting overnight, with beer and sandwiches brought up from a neighboring restaurant, are a specialty of the house. (What location filming there is, is actually Paris, in the heart of the nouvelle vague era.) Davies’ Maigret is active and energetic without breaking a sweat, very much a man who makes things happen. Davies also played the detective in a 1965 theatrical production, “Maigret and the Lady,” by Philip Mackie. Stream on Prime Video and Apple TV+.

Richard Harris, ‘Maigret’ (1988)

This version is a curiosity, which gives us Maigret without the Simenon. Harris is a rangy, bespectacled, Irish-y Maigret in this oddity, feature-length failed pilot, with an original story by Arthur Weingarten, whose other credits include “The Mod Squad,” “Ironside” and “T.J. Hooker,” much of which is set on a cruise ship. (Real Paris locations are also featured.) Located firmly in its era, with a synthesized score, it features a Maigret in need of a haircut, wearing his sweater misbuttoned as he explains the case to the gathered suspects — some sort of acting choice, I guess — but also in a tuxedo drinking a cocktail with an umbrella stuck in. (Not very much in character in either case.) The signature pipe is very much a smoking presence, making Harris, on record as a huge fan of the books, look a little like Popeye. Stream on YouTube.

Michael Gambon, ‘Maigret’ (1992)

A period piece set in post-World War II Paris, this series logged two seasons of six episodes each. This is where I discovered the character, when it aired on PBS, before I moved over to the books, and it remains my favorite interpretation. Gambon, who in an odd coincidence followed Harris in the role of Albus Dumbledore in the “Harry Potter” films is (not unlike Dumbledore, after all) soft-spoken but stern when necessary. With his thinning hair and a mustache you can forget is there, he melts into his surroundings — this is the first of these series to substitute Budapest for Paris — becoming one sympathetically with his city and its citizens. A scrappy Geoffrey Hutchings shines as Sgt. Inspector Lucas, Maigret’s right hand. Stream on BritBox.

Rowan Atkinson, ‘Maigret’ (2016)

The man who was — is? — Mr. Bean plays it absolutely straight in the role — indeed, he is the most serious, saddest and possibly gentlest Maigret to date; it’s as if he feels all that prevents the world from breaking to pieces. Set in the mid-1950s, slightly after the Gambon “Maigret,” it comprises four feature-length episodes, in the current manner of British mystery adaptations, including a “Night at the Crossroads” that differs greatly from the book and previous film. An often compelling production, this series, too, was shot, handsomely … in Budapest. Stream on BritBox.

Benjamin Wainwright, ‘Maigret’ (2025)

And so, back once again in Hungary, we come to this year’s model. Police headquarters have moved from the dusty old warrens at the Quai des Orfèvres, as in the real world, a hop and a skip from Notre-Dame, to a gleaming new digs with plenty of light and all modern conveniences out in Clichy. There are changes that make good sense for a series set in 2025, including some gender and ethnic diversity injected into the “Faithful Four,” Maigret’s team of close collaborators, and among the characters they encounter. Madame Maigret (Stefanie Martini), always an intelligent and helpful partner, gets a job as a medical professional; Maigret, whom in olden days was brought coffee and served dinner, brings home takeout, cooks a little, helps with the dishes. And they’re trying for a baby.

The action is naturally adjusted for modern technology — of course, one of the attractions of the earlier and period series is that there is none. Wainwright’s Maigret doesn’t smoke a pipe, but he carries one, inherited from his late father, who managed the estate where Maigret grew up, which is knitted into the series as a long arc (three two-part episodes, incorporating multiple cases). Wainwright, appropriately low-key, is fine — the least interesting of these actors to my mind — but if you’re looking for a new detective series set in Budapest-as-Paris, this is nicely made and sufficiently involving, with an excellent supporting cast. I would like to think that a weather report on the radio is a nod to Simenon’s habit of opening a story with a description of the season and the climate, but perhaps that is overthought. Watch on PBS and stream on PBS.org, the PBS app and the PBS Masterpiece Prime Video channel.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court opens its new term on Monday and is scheduled to hear arguments in 33 cases this fall.

The justices will hear challenges to transgender rights, voting rights and Trump tariffs and will reconsider a 90-year-old precedent that protects officials of independent agencies from being fired by the president.

Here are the major cases set for argument:

Conversion therapy and free speech: Does a licensed mental health counselor have a 1st Amendment right to talk to patients under age 18 about changing their sexual orientation or gender identity, even if doing so is prohibited by state law?

California in 2012 was first state to ban “conversion therapy,” believing it was harmful to minors and leads to depression and suicide. Other states followed, relying on their authority to regulate the practice of medicine and to prohibit substandard care.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group, sued on behalf of a Colorado counselor and argued that the state is “censoring” her speech. (Chiles vs. Salazar, to be argued on Tuesday.)

Supreme Court Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., left, Clarence Thomas and Brett M. Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. attend inauguration ceremonies for Donald Trump in the rotunda of the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 20 in Washington.

(Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

Voting rights and Black majority districts: Does a state violate the Constitution if it redraws its congressional districts to create one with a Black majority?

In the past, the court has said racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional. But citing the Voting Rights Act, it also has ruled states must sometimes create an electoral district where a Black or Latino candidate has a good chance to win.

Otherwise, these minorities may be shut out from political representation in Congress, state legislatures or county boards.

But Justice Clarence Thomas has argued for outlawing all use of race in drawing district lines, and the court may adopt his view in a pending dispute over a second Black majority district in Louisiana. (Louisiana vs. Callais, to be argued Oct. 15.)

Trump and tariffs: Does President Trump have legal authority acting on his own to impose large import taxes on products coming from otherwise friendly countries?

Trump is relying on a 1977 law that empowers the president to act when faced with an “unusual and extraordinary threat” from abroad. The measure does not mention tariffs or taxes.

In a pair of cases, lower courts ruled the tariffs were illegal but kept them in place for now. Trump administration lawyers argue the justices should defer to the president because tariffs involve foreign affairs and national security. (Learning Resources vs. Trump, to be argued Nov. 5.)

The high court will look at whether transgender athletes can compete in certain sports. Above, a 100-meter hurdles event during a track meet in Riverside in April.

(Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times)

Transgender athletes and school sports: Can a state prevent a transgender student whose “biological sex at birth” was male from competing on a girls sports team?

West Virginia and Idaho adopted such laws but they were struck down by judges who said they violated the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of laws and the federal Title IX law that bars sex discrimination in schools and colleges.

Trump voiced support for “keeping men out of women’s sports” — a characterization deemed false by transgender women and their advocates, among others. If the Supreme Court agrees, this rule is likely to be enforced nationwide under Title IX. (West Virginia vs. B.P.J. is due to be heard in December.)

Trump and independent agencies: May the president fire officials of independent agencies who were appointed with fixed terms set by Congress?

Since 1887, Congress has created semi-independent boards, commissions and agencies with regulatory duties. While their officials are appointed by the president, their fixed terms keep them in office when a new president takes over.

The Supreme Court upheld their independence from direct presidential control in the 1935 case of Humphreys Executor vs. U.S., but Trump has fired several such officials.

The current court has sided with Trump in two such cases and will hear arguments on whether to overturn the 90-year-old precedent. (Trump vs. Slaughter is due to be argued in December.)

HARRISBURG, Pa. — A federal judge has concluded that the Department of Justice’s prosecution of Kilmar Abrego Garcia on human smuggling charges may be an illegal retaliation after he successfully sued the Trump administration over his deportation to El Salvador.

The case of Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was a construction worker living legally in Maryland when he was wrongly deported to his home country, has become a proxy for the partisan struggle over President Trump’s sweeping immigration crackdown and mass deportation agenda.

U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw late Friday granted a request by lawyers for Abrego Garcia and ordered discovery and an evidentiary hearing in Abrego Garcia’s effort to show that the federal human smuggling case against him in Tennessee is illegally retaliatory.

Crenshaw said Abrego Garcia had shown that there is “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive.” That evidence included statements by various Trump administration officials and the timeline of the charges being filed.

The departments of Justice and Homeland Security did not immediately respond to inquiries about the case Saturday.

In his 16-page ruling, Crenshaw said many statements by administration officials “raise cause for concern,” but one stood out.

That statement by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, on a Fox News program after Abrego Garcia was charged in June, seemed to suggest that the Department of Justice charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case, Crenshaw wrote.

Blanche’s ”remarkable statements could directly establish that the motivations for Abrego’s criminal charges stem from his exercise of his constitutional and statutory rights” to sue over his deportation “rather than a genuine desire to prosecute him for alleged criminal misconduct,” Crenshaw wrote.

Likewise, Crenshaw noted that the Department of Homeland Security reopened an investigation into Abrego Garcia days after the Supreme Court said in April that the Trump administration must work to bring back Abrego Garcia.

Abrego Garcia was indicted May 21 and charged June 6, the day the U.S. brought him back from a prison in El Salvador. He pleaded not guilty and is now being held in Pennsylvania.

If convicted in the Tennessee case, Abrego Garcia will be deported, federal officials have said. A U.S. immigration judge has denied Abrego Garcia’s bid for asylum, although he can appeal.

Abrego Garcia has an American wife and children and has lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the United States illegally as a teenager.

In 2019, he was arrested by immigration agents. He requested asylum but was not eligible because he had been in the U.S. for more than a year. But the judge ruled he could not be deported to El Salvador, where he faced danger from a gang that targeted his family.

The human smuggling charges in Tennessee stem from a 2022 traffic stop. He was not charged at the time.

Trump administration officials have waged a relentless public relations campaign against Abrego Garcia, repeatedly referring to him as a member of the MS-13 gang, among other things, despite the fact he has not been convicted of any crimes. The government has provided no clear evidence of gang affiliation, and Abrego Garcia denies the allegation.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have denounced the criminal charges and the deportation efforts, saying they are an attempt to punish him for standing up to the administration.

Abrego Garcia contends that, while imprisoned in El Salvador — in a notorious lockup with a documented history of human rights abuses — he suffered beatings, sleep deprivation and psychological torture. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has denied those allegations.

Levy writes for the Associated Press.

Kim Kardashian and Kris Jenner are taking legal action to snuff out accusations that they are the subjects of a federal criminal racketeering investigation — claims publicized by the former’s ex-boyfriend Ray J.

Attorneys for the “Kardashians” reality stars and businesswomen sued the “One Wish” singer Wednesday for defamation and false light publicity. The 13-page complaint, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, stems from numerous comments Ray J made this year about his old flame and her family in a TMZ documentary and on a Twitch livestream.

“Ray J’s public statements are blatantly false,” the lawsuit says. “No such federal investigation exists; no law enforcement agency has initiated any criminal proceedings or investigations related to racketeering charges against Ms. Kardashian or Ms. Jenner; and no credible evidence whatsoever supports these inflammatory allegations.”

Neither representatives for the “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” alumnae nor Ray J (born Ray Norwood Jr.) immediately responded to requests for comment.

The complaint alleges that Ray J — younger brother to singer-actor Brandy — first publicly suggested the mother-daughter duo’s involvement in a RICO investigation in May 2025, when he appeared in the TMZ documentary “United States vs. Sean Combs: Inside the Diddy Trial.” The TMZ special chronicled the developments in the rap and alcohol-branding mogul’s high-profile federal sex-trafficking case. The 44-year-old singer linked Combs’ case to his ex-girlfriend and her famous family, stating in the special, “If you told me that the Kardashians was being charged for racketeering, I might believe it,” the lawsuit says.

Attorneys for Jenner, 69, and Kardashian, 44, allege Ray J’s comment “was designed to plant the seed in the public mind” that the reality stars are comparable to Combs, who was accused of drugging women, violence against ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and orchestrating orgies known as “freakoffs.” “To date, Ray J has not retracted his knowingly false and disparaging statement,” the lawsuit says.

Months after appearing on the TMZ special, Ray J doubled down on his claims during a Twitch livestream with rapper Chrisean Rock in late September. The “Sexy Can I” musician declared last week, “The federal RICO I’m about to drop on Kris and Kim is about to be crazy,” according to court documents. During the livestream Ray J also allegedly said “the feds is coming, there’s nothing I can do about it” and claimed the stars’ supposed RICO case is “worse than Diddy[‘s].”

“I’m talking about, I’m on the news every day. I’m gonna say a lot of s—,” he said about the scale of the RICO case, the complaint says.

Elsewhere in the livestream, he urged his followers: “Anybody that is cool with Kim, they need to tell her now, the rain is coming, the feds is coming.”

Infamously, Kardashian and Ray J were an item in the early 2000s. Though they broke up in 2006, their sex tape was leaked in 2007, the same year “Keeping Up With the Kardashians” premiered on E!

Attorneys for Jenner and Kardashian cast Ray J’s accusations as his latest attempts to stay relevant. The lawsuit alleges he has a history of “making false, sensationalized claims about high-profile individuals” to gain attention, citing an online incident with rapper Sexxy Red. Earlier this year, Ray J hinted he got intimate with the “Sticky” rapper. He apologized for the claim and clarified that they just sat near each other on the same flight. “I went out of control and I said that I slept with Sexxy Red,” he said.

The lawsuit says Jenner and Kardashian — who recently completed her legal training — “suffered reputational harm” that has taken and will continue to take a professional toll. They are seeking a jury trial and an unspecified amount in damages exceeding $35,000.

As news of the lawsuit spread Wednesday, Ray J seemingly stood firm in his accusations. In a video shared to his Instagram story Wednesday, he asserted, “I’m not about to be silenced.” He also said he spoke with Jenner-Kardashian attorney Alex Spiro, who allegedly asked him “crazy questions,” including whether he spoke to “feds.”

“Honestly, like, y’all should be super scared because I’m not backing down. I’m tired of it,” Ray J continued. “The rain is coming, there’s nothing you can do about it.”

In another Instagram story shared Wednesday evening, he announced to followers that he would be going live on Twitch at 2 a.m., “that’s 5 o’clock New York Time, perfect time for ‘The Breakfast Club’ to be stalking my page and see what I’m gonna say.”

Musk, considered the world’s richest man, had argued his ‘incredibly busy’ schedule made attending the Washington, DC, case a burden.

Billionaire Elon Musk has failed to persuade a federal judge in Washington, DC, to move a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lawsuit over the late disclosure of his growing Twitter stake to Texas after saying he was too busy to defend himself in the nation’s capital.

US District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan said on Thursday she “takes Mr. Musk’s convenience seriously” but that the world’s richest person has “considerable means” and spends at least 40 percent of his time outside Texas.

“Indeed,” she wrote, “Mr. Musk’s brief itself indicates that he has spent substantial time here this year,” referencing when he ran the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under President Donald Trump.

Sooknanan also said Texas judges have bigger caseloads than in her court and she could proceed with “reasonable alacrity”.

In seeking to move the case, Musk said he was an “incredibly busy individual” who works 80-plus-hour weeks and often sleeps in his office or factory. He argued that litigating in Washington, DC, would impose “substantial burdens”.

Lawyers for Musk did not immediately respond to requests for comment from the Reuters news agency. A spokesperson for the SEC had no comment, citing the government shutdown that began on Wednesday.

Musk’s fortune surpassed $500 billion for the first time that day, according to the publication Forbes.

The SEC sued Musk in January, saying his 11-day delay in revealing his initial 5-percent Twitter stake in early 2022 let him buy more than $500m of shares at artificially low prices.

It wants Musk to pay a civil fine and give up $150m he allegedly saved at the expense of unsuspecting investors. Musk is seeking to dismiss the case. He bought all of Twitter for $44bn in October 2022 and renamed it X.

Musk lives in Austin, Texas, and his companies Tesla, SpaceX and the Boring tunnel business are based in the state.

Sooknanan rejected Musk’s alternative proposal to move the SEC case to Manhattan, where former Twitter shareholders are suing him.

Every day, some of L.A.’s poorest residents line up outside the county benefits office in South Central, weaving their way through a swarm of salesmen hawking deals that feel too good to be true.

Would you like $15 for a quick blood pressure exam? A free phone? Perhaps, $2 for a COVID swab?

How about cash to sign up to sue L.A. County for sexual abuse at juvenile halls?

Over the last year, a Times investigation found a practice of paying for plaintiffs among a nebulous network of vendors, who usher people desperate for cash toward a law firm that could profit significantly from their business.

The Times spent two weeks outside the county social services office in South Central Los Angeles, where a constant flow of people applied for food stamps and cash aid, and spoke with seven people who said they were paid there within the last year to sue the county for sex abuse.

Most said they were abused inside the county’s juvenile halls, but had not planned to sue until they were flagged down on the sidewalk and offered cash. Two people said they were told to fabricate stories of abuse.

All the claims involving alleged payments were filed by Downtown LA Law Group, a pivotal player in the county’s recent $4-billion settlement for sex abuse inside its juvenile halls and foster homes — the largest such payout in U.S. history. Of the roughly 11,000 plaintiffs in the settlement, The Times found that nearly one-fourth were represented by the firm.

Marlon Bland, 31, said he got $200 — half in cash outside the county’s social services office and the other half when he went to meet with lawyers from Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA. The receptionist there handed him a $100 check, he said. DTLA sued the county on his behalf Aug. 23, 2024.

Kevin Richardson, 59, whose suit was filed by DTLA on Oct. 15, said he got $50 outside the social services office.

Quantavia Smith, 38, whose suit was filed by DTLA on April 29, said a vendor drove her to the office of a downtown law firm and then gave her $200.

The Times could not reach the vendors for the story, and DTLA attorneys declined to be interviewed. The law firm strongly denied paying people to sue and said no representative of the firm had been authorized to make payments.

“We do not pay our clients to file lawsuits, and we strongly oppose such actions,” the law firm said. “If we ever became aware that anyone associated with us, in any capacity, did such a thing — we would end our relationship with them immediately. We want justice for real victims.”

California law bans a practice known as capping, in which non-attorneys directly solicit or procure clients to sign up for lawsuits with a law firm.

DTLA did not answer questions about how the people who said they were paid to sue ended up with the law firm.

The firm’s statement said all their cases go through an intense review process “that tests for truthfulness and has many checks and balances.”

“As a result of this stringent quality control, we have rejected clients whose cases did not meet our criteria,” the firm said. “We are confident that the claims we have filed are valid and will withstand judicial scrutiny.”

For the last year, a mystery has vexed veteran sex abuse attorneys: How did a law firm best known for representing victims of auto accidents attract so many sex abuse plaintiffs in less than two years?

According to a Times analysis of court records, DTLA has amassed more than 2,700 people to sue L.A. County, more than nearly any other law firm involved in the settlement. The firm will get nearly half the payout for each client, per retainer agreements viewed by The Times.

Two legal experts warned, speaking generally, that offering people cash to sue, particularly those who are financially on the brink, could invite fraud into the historic sex abuse settlement.

“Of course, it makes the chance of fraudulent claims more likely,” said Richard Zitrin, a legal ethics professor at UC Law SF.

Some plaintiffs say they were explicitly told to make up claims.

“They tell you what to say,” said Carlshawn Stovall, 43, who said he was given about $20 by a vendor outside the benefits office to sue. “You’re supposed to make it up.”

Stovall said he gave the vendor his cellphone number and was told a lawyer would call him soon and ask him a few questions: What facility were you in? What year? How were you abused?

The vendor handed him a postcard-sized “script” of how to respond, he said. He didn’t need to worry about getting fact-checked, the vendor told him, as the county had no records of who was in its facilities decades ago. It seemed “a good way to get some quick money,” he said.

By the time the call came, he said, he’d lost the script, so he ad-libbed that probation officers watched him masturbate in the shower. The call, he said, lasted less than ten minutes and he never heard from them again.

On Nov. 7, DTLA filed a lawsuit on his behalf alleging he was “sexually harassed and abused” by staff in Central Juvenile Hall. Stovall said he was never in juvenile hall — much less abused there.

“I was a good kid,” he said, laughing.

Juan Fajardo said he used to sell phones next to the lawsuit vendors. He said he would watch a man pull up outside the social services office in a Tesla most Fridays and hand the recruiters cash, which they would dole out the following week to potential plaintiffs. The recruiters told him they were paid per person they signed up, he said.

“‘Just make up a story, say you got touched, here’s $50,’” Fajardo recalled the recruiters who set up shop next to him saying. “They’ll give it to you and then say, ‘Hey you never know, you might even get a lawsuit.’”

One recruiter also sold phones, he recounted. When someone wanted to get a phone, he said, he’d watch the recruiter first take a call on the new phone and make up a story of abuse under the customer’s name. The recruiter would then hand the customer their new phone and pocket the $50 for himself, Fajardo said.

After a few months of watching, Fajardo said, he decided to make up a story, too. He didn’t want to give his real name, so he gave the recruiter the name of a family member and a fake birthday. He said he took $50 and later got a call from a law firm. Ten minutes after the call, he said, he was told his case had been accepted.

DTLA filed the lawsuit under the family’s member name on Aug. 28, 2024. Fajardo said he doesn’t feel right trying to collect the money.

“I said something like, ‘They videotaped us while we’re in the showers, touching us while they pat us down,’” he recounted. “That’s what everyone was saying. I was like, ‘I’ll just use that instead of trying to make up a whole different lie.’”

Most plaintiffs The Times spoke with only knew the first names of the vendors, which some referred to as “recruiters” for the law firm, and said they hadn’t seen them for a few months.

They would usually hang around the people offering free phones right next to the entrance to the county building, according to some who said they were paid.

“It’s been three different people that I’ve seen. They come randomly, maybe once or twice a month,” said Oscar Garcia, who sells cigarettes on the sidewalk. “They promise them $50 to sign.”

Like most sexual abuse cases, all of DTLA’s lawsuits that are part of the massive settlement were filed using only the victim’s initials — JOHN DOE A.R., JANE DOE M.P. The Times confirmed the seven people who said they were paid had lawsuits filed by DTLA through sources with access to plaintiffs’ real names and case numbers.

After The Times reached out to DTLA for comment, the firm called two people The Times had spoken with on the record into its office on Sept. 11 and told them to stop speaking with the reporter.

One man, whom The Times is not naming as he later asked to not be included in the story, called The Times the morning of Sept. 11 and said the firm had ordered him a ride from the broken down car he was living out of in South Central to the firm’s office. He said an attorney had warned him that The Times was doing a “smear article” and didn’t want plaintiffs like him receiving any money from the settlement.

Mitchell Langberg, a defamation lawyer retained by the firm, sent The Times a sworn declaration from the man later that day, accusing the reporter of pretending to be a representative of DTLA to lure him into speaking freely.

The man had saved the reporter’s number in his phone as belonging to the “LA TIMES,” had his picture taken by a Times photographer, sent emails to the reporter’s L.A. Times email account and texted asking when the story would run in the paper.

Shortly afterward, some of the DTLA clients interviewed for this story received a text from the firm, they said, warning them against speaking with reporters:

“If you have been contacted, please notify our office immediately,” the text read.

The litigation floodgates opened in 2020 after California passed a law allowing survivors of childhood sexual abuse to sue the perpetrator even though the statute of limitations had passed on their cases.

Since then, law firms have hunted aggressively for lucrative cases, flooding social media with ads and quietly tapping third parties to find former occupants of county-run juvenile halls and foster homes. The effort has met little resistance from L.A. County officials, who say they threw out relevant records long ago.

This spring, the county agreed to pay $4 billion to settle thousands of sex abuse claims dating back to the 1950s without taking depositions or knowing the names of thousands of plaintiffs. Rather, the vetting had been done almost entirely by attorneys who stand to walk away with more than a billion dollars in fees.

It is a lopsided system that, some attorneys concede, risks squandering taxpayer money meant for victims who suffered egregious abuse as children in the county’s custody.

“The whole thing just stinks,” said John Manly, a longtime sex abuse lawyer who served as a lead attorney in the settlements against USA Gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar and USC gynecologist George Tyndall. “It looks to me like a third of these cases are total bull—, and [the county] is paying for no reason.”

As a state lawmaker, Lorena Gonzalez pushed for AB 218, which gave victims a new window to sue over childhood sexual abuse. Gonzalez, now the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, said she believes plaintiff lawyers have taken advantage of the law change.

(K.C. Alfred / San Diego Union-Tribune)

Manly’s law firm, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, is one of three prominent law firms that sued the county under the law change, but did not join the settlement.

DTLA was started by two cousins, Daniel Azizi and Farid Yaghoubtil, and their childhood friend Salar Hendizadeh, the partners told commercial real estate company CoStar after expanding in 2023 to a new Banksy-adorned office building downtown. Attorneys focus on the typical cases for most personal injury firms — dog bites, falls and auto accidents.

The firm became the scourge of ride app companies such as Uber, which sued DTLA and another law firm in federal court in July. The ride app giant alleged that the firms had filed a flurry of “fraudulent claims” and colluded with an Encino-based doctor to inflate the cost of plaintiffs’ medical expenses. The lawsuit is ongoing. In an Instagram post, DTLA called it a “calculated attempt by a billion-dollar corporation” to suppress legitimate claims.

In an interview in June before The Times learned of the alleged vendor payments, attorney Andrew Morrow, the lead attorney in nearly all the firm’s sex abuse cases against the county, said DTLA’s success was due to the reputation he had cultivated as “the therapy guy … out in the streets of downtown LA.” Clients called him, he said, because they knew the firm would connect them with a therapist.

“And I said, Well, let me ask you this, do you have a lawsuit? Were you a victim?” Morrow said of the calls. “We were filling a void in the marketplace.”

Some of the DTLA clients The Times interviewed said they spoke with a therapist provided by the firm. Four said they never heard from the firm after the day they signed up for a lawsuit.

Morrow said sexual abuse cases were “a little bit of a new frontier” for him. He had previously specialized in real estate, entertainment and insurance litigation at a firm he founded before switching to DTLA in 2023, according to his old bio.

He is now one of the region’s most prolific filers of sexual abuse cases. His cases, he said, are vetted for fraud through mental health professionals.

“I’m sure there are firms that still have cases like that,” he said. “We don’t because, like I said, ours go to therapy, and our doctors identify that stuff.”

For thousands of sex abuse victims, the law worked as intended.

With the passage of AB 218 in 2020, survivors had until they were 40 rather than 26 to sue their abuser, giving them a chance to get financial compensation for horrors they were far too young to grapple with — much less sue over — as children. Stories of abuse that had been hidden for decades surfaced, as did the names of prolific abusers, some of whom were still working with minors.

But it also put a massive target on the budgets of government entities, which had long ago thrown out records that could be used for a defense. Former state lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez, who spearheaded the law, says she’s been disturbed by how it’s panned out.

“It’s clear that the State Bar and attorneys themselves cannot hold themselves accountable,” said Gonzalez, now the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. “What they’re doing, I think, to the cities and counties is deplorable.”

Following the law change, firms began amassing thousands of clients to sue the county through social media campaigns promising payouts and privacy.

“You’re going to be a Jane Doe or a John Doe,” Morrow told potential clients in a video posted to the firm’s TikTok page last year. “No one’s ever going to know your name.”

The cases are lucrative for attorneys, many of whom will receive 40% of their clients’ payouts, according to retainer agreements viewed by The Times. That includes New York City-based Slater Slater Schulman, which has roughly 3,700 clients; Boca-Raton-based Herman Law, with about 800 clients; and Los Angeles-based Becker Law Group and McNicholas & McNicholas, for which The Times found a combined 1,100 plaintiffs. Todd Becker, with Becker Law Group, said their fee differs from plaintiff to plaintiff.

DTLA has the highest contingency fee The Times found, requiring 45% of any payout. DTLA said its fee structure is “entirely standard within the industry.” These fees typically range from 33% to 40%, according to the American Bar Assn.

With most retainers on the higher end of the range, some attorneys involved in the settlement estimate $1.5 billion in taxpayer money could easily flow to lawyers — close to what the county Fire Department spends in a year.

As the county prepares to start dispensing money in January, some firms say they’ve started to find a few flaws in their caseload.

Becker Law Group said in a July court filing that four of the firm’s clients recently told the firm they weren’t abused. Patrick McNicholas, who co-counsels cases with the firm, said the lawsuits were weeded out as part of the firm’s vetting process.

Slater Slater Schulman, which has filed more cases than any other law firm, stated in a September filing that client John Doe J.S. “should not have been included.” The firm previously said in a lawsuit that he had been sexually assaulted at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey beginning in 2006 when he was 13.

Slater Slater Schulman has found similar problems in its avalanche of sex abuse cases against the Boy Scouts of America. On Sept. 9, retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Barbara Houser, who is overseeing the $2.4-billion victim settlement trust, singled out Slater Slater Schulman for a pattern of “irregularities” and “procedural and factual problems” among its plaintiffs. The firm previously said it represented roughly 14,000 victims.

The firm was asked to pay for an “independent third party” to investigate its cases for fraud before going through the trust’s standard vetting process. Clifford Robert, an outside attorney representing the firm in its issues with the Boy Scout cases, said Slater Slater Schulman is “working tirelessly” to address the issues and that justice for survivors is its top priority.

Tammy Rogers, 56, hired the Slater firm in 2022 to sue after a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center, a county-run children’s facility now infamous for abuse, allegedly molested her when she was about 9. She said she’s grown unnerved by the financial incentive lawyers like hers have in amassing unwieldy numbers of clients.

“You can’t get ahold of them,” she said of her firm, which has filed cases on behalf of hundreds of new plaintiffs since the settlement was finalized. “I called them repeatedly, repeatedly, repeatedly.”

Tammy Rogers, 56, said a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center sexually abused her when she was 9, an incident that sent her spiraling toward drugs and tortured relationships with men. She sued the county in 2022.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

County and plaintiff lawyers nailed down the $4-billion figure on Oct. 30. Since then, thousands more plaintiffs have been added.

“[Firms think] ‘there’s a fund out there, and I’m going to do everything in my power to get as much as I can,’” said one attorney suing the county over sex abuse, who declined to be named, fearing professional repercussions.

It’s a fund, critics say, with few safeguards for fake claims.

The cases will be reviewed by retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger, who mediated similar settlements for the victims of the 2023 Maui wildfires and the 2017 Las Vegas concert mass shooting. Any plaintiff who wants to skip that vetting process can take $150,000 in a lump sum at the start of next year.

Meisinger will distribute the remaining money after reviewing fact sheets from the victims. If Meisinger believes a case is fraudulent, the county can either give the plaintiff $50,000 to resolve it or get it booted from the settlement, meaning it would work its own way through the court system, according to an allocation protocol reviewed by The Times.

Otherwise, the minimum amount a client can get is $100,000, according to the protocol. The most is $3 million, far less than some victims who suffered egregious abuse feel they deserve.

“I spent two years being tortured by some grown ass men. I mean, I even gave them names,” said a man who was granted anonymity to discuss his case. “It seems like, once again, I’m being taken advantage of.”

He said he had hoped to use the money to buy 60 acres of land for a group home that would give orphaned children the joy he says was snuffed out of him before he hit puberty. At age 10, he said, he was raped and forced to perform oral sex on a man at MacLaren Children’s Center. At age 43, he said, he can’t smell Pine-Sol without flashbacks to the supply closet favored by his abusers as a site for their assaults.

Trinidad Pena, 52, said she desperately needs the settlement money to pay for medical care, overdue bills and therapy. At age 12, she said, she was impregnated by a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center — an assault that has haunted her since the 1980s.

“What kind of rights did I have as a 12-year-old to sign away another human being?” asked Pena, who recalls seeing the baby for seven minutes before the girl was given to a family in Laguna Hills through a closed adoption. “The lawyers are being made millionaires, but we are just going to be able to pay our back taxes.”

The county was never interested in a fight.

Once the deluge of lawsuits started, county lawyers had just one goal: to make the cases go away without the county going bankrupt.

They did not want to risk a trial. Early in negotiations, county lawyers understood they were looking at a number of cases of brutal rape and molestation that could easily make a disgusted jury award the type of budget-busting $135-million verdict that got handed to the Moreno Valley Unified School District in 2023 for the sexual abuse of two students by a middle school teacher. The district hired him despite a past arrest for molesting his foster son, according to the lawsuit.

Attorney John Manly said he believes the county did not do enough vetting of the cases. Manly’s law firm, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, is one of three prominent law firms that sued the county under the law change, but did not join the $4-billion settlement.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

If there were even 30 cases that appalled the jury as much as that one, the county would risk paying far more than $4 billion. Better, the county lawyers reasoned, to come up with a total sum that wouldn’t drain coffers of the government, which is responsible for the social safety net for the poorest residents, and let someone else divvy it up among the thousands of victims. With a $45-billion budget, they could make $4 billion work if most county agencies trimmed their spending.

Andy Baum, the county’s outside attorney leading the defense effort, told a judge in a June hearing that he viewed it as an “inventory settlement.” There were simply too many cases, the county felt, to fight individually. And so lawyers conducted only basic vetting of the claims — most of which were filed in court with a pseudonym, an unnamed abuser, and a sentence or two about the abuse. They took no depositions, according to multiple lawyers involved in the settlement.

“We have thousands of cases, and we don’t even have the most fundamental information,” Baum said at the hearing.

The county also allowed many cases to become part of the settlement without the paperwork the law requires. Under state law, cases in which the victim is older than 40 must be filed with a certificate from a therapist, who can attest that there is a “reasonable basis” to believe the plaintiff was sexually abused.

DTLA, which specialized in these cases, filed many of its older lawsuits without the certificate, considered by the Legislature as a critical way to prevent fraudulent claims. The county lawyers never protested, explaining in the June court hearing that they wanted to make sure DTLA’s cases were quickly ushered into the nearly finalized settlement.

“We had a gun to our head,” Baum told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff, who’s overseeing the juvenile hall abuse cases, when pressed by the judge on why he waived the rule.

DTLA said nearly all of its certificates have since been filed, but did not provide numbers on how many remain outstanding.

The paltry defense launched by the county has some rethinking the law that started the deluge.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) tried to push through a bill this session intended as a lifeline to entities drowning in sex abuse lawsuits by limiting the window victims would have to sue. He pulled it last month after outcry from victim advocacy groups that said it trampled on the rights of survivors.

Maryland went further after being flooded with sex abuse claims for juvenile facilities following a similar state law change in 2023. This spring, the state capped sex abuse cases against government entities at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

That’s not happening in California.

“It’s just, in my view, not politically viable,” Laird said.

Some lawmakers who try to change the law have faced brutal pushback by law firms, including Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, which has run ads branding such bills as “predator” protection.

“I don’t see the appetite,” he said.

For L.A. County, the pace of cases remains relentless.

Since the announcement of the $4-billion settlement, James Harris Law, a Seattle-based firm that specializes in mass torts, has been aggressively recruiting clients through social media ads that tell “abused juvies” they can qualify in 30 seconds for up to $1 million.

After The Times entered a reporter’s cellphone number in one of the firm’s ads on Instagram, a representative from the firm’s intake department called more than 38 times.

Harris said his firm runs a “straightforward public awareness campaign” and didn’t believe his ads contained dollar amounts. The sums were removed from the ads after The Times contacted Harris.

The marketing proved fruitful. This summer, months after the county announced the settlement, Baum said, James Harris called him to discuss his brimming inventory: 2,500 new cases.

Baum said the newcomer acknowledged he was “late to the party.”

Sean Greene and Gabrielle LaMarr LeMee contributed to this report.

President Trump warned the country’s top ranking military officials Tuesday that they could be headed to “war” with U.S. citizens, signaling a major escalation in the ongoing legal battle over his authority to deploy soldiers to police American streets.

“What they’ve done to San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles — they’re very unsafe places, and we’re going to straighten them out one-by-one,” Trump said in an address to top brass in Quantico, Va. “That’s a war too. It’s a war from within.”

Commanders should use American cities as “training grounds,” the president said.

Trump’s words provoked instant pushback. Oregon has already filed a legal challenge, and experts expressed concern that what the president described is against the law.

“He is suggesting that they learn how to become warriors in American cities,” said Daniel C. Schwartz, former general counsel at the National Security Agency, who heads the legal team at National Security Leaders for America. “That should scare everybody. It’s also boldly illegal.”

The use of soldiers to assist with federal immigration raids and crowd control at protests and otherwise enforce civilian laws has been a point of contention with big city mayors and blue state governors for months, beginning with the deployment of thousands of federalized National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines to Los Angeles in early June.

That deployment was illegal, a federal judge ruled last month. In a scorching 52-page decision, U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer barred soldiers under Trump’s command from carrying out law enforcement duties across California, warning of a “national police force with the President as its chief.”

Yet hundreds of troops remained on the streets of Los Angeles while the matter was under litigation. With the case still moving through the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, hundreds more are now set to arrive in Portland, Ore., with another hundred reportedly enroute to Chicago — all over the objections of state and local leaders.

“Isolated threats to federal property should not be enough to warrant this kind of response,” said Eric J. Segall, a professor at Georgia State University College of Law. “The threat has to be really serious, and I don’t think the Trump administration has made that case.”

Others agreed.

“I’m tremendously worried,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “Using the military for domestic law enforcement is something that’s characteristic of authoritarian regimes.”

Oregon’s attorney general filed a lawsuit Monday alleging the president had applied a “baseless, wildly hyperbolic pretext” to send in the troops. Officials in Illinois, where the Trump administration has made Chicago a focal point of immigration enforcement, are also poised to file a challenge.

Although the facts on the ground are different legally, the Oregon suit is a near copy-paste of the California battle making its way through the courts, experts said.

“That’s exactly the model that they’re following,” said Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.

Unlike the controversial decision to send National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., in August, the Los Angeles and Portland deployments have relied on an esoteric subsection of the law, which allows the president to federalize troops over the objection of state governments in certain limited cases.

California’s challenge to those justifications has so far floundered in court, with the 9th Circuit finding in June that judges must be “highly deferential” to the president’s interpretation of facts on the ground. That case is under review by a larger panel of judges.

In a memo filed Monday, California Deputy Solicitor General Christopher D. Hu warned that the decision had emboldened the administration to deploy troops elsewhere, citing Portland as an example.

“Defendants apparently believe that the June 7 memorandum — issued in response to events in Los Angeles — indefinitely authorizes the deployment of National Guard troops anywhere in the country, for virtually any reason,” Hu wrote. “It is time to end this unprecedented experiment in militarized law enforcement and conscription of state National Guard troops outside the narrow conditions allowed by Congress.”

Experts warn the obscure 19th century law at the heart of the debate is vague and “full of loopholes,” worrying some who see repeated deployment as a slippery slope to widespread, long-term military occupations.

“That has not been our experience at least since the Civil War,” Schwartz said. “If we become accustomed to seeing armed uniformed service personnel in our cities, we risk not objecting to it, and when we stop objecting to it, it becomes a norm.”

The joint address to military leaders in Virginia on Tuesday further stoked those fears.

“We’re under invasion from within,” the president admonished generals and admirals gathered in the auditorium. “No different from a foreign enemy, but more difficult in many ways because they don’t wear uniforms.”

He touted the move in August to create a “quick reaction force” to “quell civil disturbances” — a decree folded into his executive order expanding the D.C. troop deployment.

“George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Grover Cleveland, George Bush and others all used the armed forces to keep domestic order and peace,” Trump said. “Now they like to say, oh, you’re not allowed to use the military.”

Those historic cases have some important differences with 2025, experts say.

When President Cleveland sent troops to break up a railroad strike and tamp down mob violence against Chinese immigrants, he invoked the Insurrection Act. So did 15 other presidents, including Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and George H.W. Bush.

Experts stress that Trump has pointedly not used the act, despite name-checking it often in his first term.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday largely avoided the theme of “enemies within,” instead extolling the “warrior ethos” at the heart of his military reform project. He railed against what he saw as the corrupted culture of the modern military — as well as its aesthetic shortcomings.

“It’s tiring to look out at combat formations and see fat troops,” Hegseth said. “It’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon. It’s a bad look.”

As deployments multiply across the country, experts said they were watching what the appellate division and ultimately the Supreme Court will decide.

“It will be a test for the Supreme Court,” Schwartz said. “Whether they are willing to continue to allow this president to do whatever he wants to do in clear violation of constitutional principles, or whether they will restrain him.”

On Monday, YouTube became the latest media and tech company to settle one of President Trump’s lawsuits.

The Google-owned streamer agreed to pay $24.5 million to settle a lawsuit Trump filed after his account was banned following the Jan. 6, 2021, riots at the U.S. Capitol. That brings Trump’s haul from media and tech companies to more than $90 million in the last year.

Some of these suits deal with conflicts the president has experienced with news networks such as ABC and CBS. Others confront the fallout from the attack on the U.S. Capitol.

Some of the settlement money will pay for renovations to a presidential library Trump is building on 2.6 acres of waterfront property in Miami. Other funds will go to the nonprofit Trust for the National Mall, with the intention of building a Mar-a-Lago-style ballroom, which is expected to cost $200 million overall.

Here’s a rundown of the payouts:

YouTube: $24.5 million

After the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, YouTube suspended the president’s account on the platform because of Trump’s alleged role in the insurrection. At the time, the company had cited “concerns about the ongoing potential for violence” and violation of its “policies for inciting violence.”

Trump’s lawsuit, filed in 2021 at the U.S. District Court in Northern California, argued the account’s suspension was “censorship.” Before the case was settled, YouTube had already lifted its suspension on Trump in March 2023, in light of the then-upcoming presidential race.

In court documents filed Monday, Alphabet, the parent company of YouTube and Google, did not admit any wrongdoing in the matter. The company did not agree to make any policy or product changes in the deal.

Of the $24.5 million, $22 million is going to Trump, who will contribute the money to the Trust for the National Mall, which is “dedicated to restoring, preserving, and elevating the National Mall” as well as supporting the construction of the White House State Ballroom, according to the filing.

Alphabet will also have to pay an additional $2.5 million to other plaintiffs in the case, including the American Conservative Union and writer Naomi Wolf.

Social media platforms Facebook (now Meta) and Twitter (now X) had suspended Trump’s accounts over Jan. 6, 2021. At the time, Twitter put out a statement, saying that recent tweets from his “account and the context around them — specifically how they are being received and interpreted on and off Twitter” had to be suspended to avoid “the risk of further incitement of violence.”

Mark Zuckerberg of Meta also posted a statement on Facebook after banning Trump’s Meta accounts. He wrote, “We believe the risks of allowing the President to continue to use our service during this period are simply too great.”

In July of that year, Trump sued the companies for “censorship.”

By January 2023, Meta had reinstated Trump’s Facebook and Instagram accounts, as had X in 2022.

Shortly before Trump was going to take office for his second term, in January 2025, Meta decided to pay the incoming president $25 million to settle the lawsuit. Elon Musk, who had purchased Twitter and renamed it “X” in the interim, agreed to pay $10 million to settle its Trump case.

Paramount Global: $16 million

Paramount Global agreed to pay $16 million to resolve Trump’s legal salvo against “60 Minutes” over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent, then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump claimed “60 Minutes” edited an interview with Harris to make her look better and bolster her chances in the election. CBS denied the claims, saying the edits were standard and the case was viewed as frivolous by 1st Amendment experts.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that CBS “did everything possible to illegally elect Kamala, including completely and corruptly changing major answers to Interview questions, but it just didn’t work for them.”

Last May, CBS offered $16 million to settle the civil suit filed in Texas. The lump sum included the president’s legal fees and an agreement that “60 Minutes” will release transcripts of interviews with future presidential candidates.

Less than a month after the settlement, the FCC approved Skydance Media’s acquisition of Paramount, which owns CBS.

Disney: $16 million

Earlier this year, ABC news anchor George Stephanopoulos appeared on the network’s “This Week” news program and asserted that Trump was found liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. In May 2023, a jury in New York declined to find Trump liable for rape, but did find him liable for sexual abuse of Carroll.

Trump responded to the on-air comments with a defamation lawsuit filed in federal court in Florida. The lawsuit was settled by ABC News, owned by Disney, last December. Disney agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library and $1 million of Trump’s legal fees.

The settlement also included an editor’s note, posted on the ABC News website, expressing regret for Stephanopoulos’ comments.

Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

Los Angeles County agreed to pay $20 million Tuesday to the family of Noah Cuatro, a 4-year-old Palmdale boy who was tortured to death by his parents in 2019.

The case brought intense scrutiny of the county’s child welfare system after it was revealed that the Department of Children and Family Services had failed to remove Noah from his parents despite a court order.

DCFS had been given 10 days to get Noah away from his parents and seen by a doctor after multiple reports of neglect and abuse, The Times previously reported. The department ignored the order.

He died less than two months later, right before his fifth birthday. His parents later pleaded no contest to murder and torture charges.

“He always begged me not to send him to his parents,” said Eva Hernandez, Noah’s great-grandmother. “I tried to explain to him so many times, but he didn’t understand. He’d take his little hands and look into my eyes and say, ‘Don’t make me go there.’”

Eva Hernandez cries while remembering her great-grandson Noah Cuatro as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors prepares to approve a $20-million settlement to his family.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Hernandez sued DCFS in 2020, alleging the department had failed her grandson and should have intervened to keep him safe. Cuatro had been under the supervision of the agency from the time he was born because his mother had been accused of fracturing his half sister’s skull.

The child welfare department said since Noah’s death they’ve hired thousands of social workers to decrease caseloads and retrained social workers on interviewing techniques and use of forensic exams.

“It is DCFS’ hope that this resolution gives Noah’s family a sense of peace,” the department said in a statement. “DCFS remains committed to learning from the past, improving its work, and operating with transparency.”

At the time of his death, Noah remained under supervision by DCFS despite more than a dozen reports to the child abuse hotline and police from callers who believed that he and his siblings were being abused.

Attorney Brian Claypool, who represented Cuatro’s family in the lawsuit, said Noah’s death was a direct result of the county failing to follow the court order to remove him from his parents. A Superior Court judge had agreed to remove him after a social worker filed a 26-page request with the court, citing evidence of abuse.

“The county really blew it with the removal order. There’s no excuse for them not to have picked up Noah,” Claypool said. “The most shocking, upsetting part of this case is when I took the deposition of the social worker in the case and the two supervisors, none of the individuals read the petition of all the abuse that was submitted to the court. That was inexcusable.”

Eva Hernandez holds a photo of her great-grandson Noah Cuatro.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

Noah’s parents initially called 911 on July 5, 2019, saying their son had drowned in a swimming pool of their apartment complex, but authorities grew suspicious after finding the boy unconscious and dry in the apartment. Doctors later found bruises across his body and signs of “mottling” around his neck.

County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, whose district includes Palmdale, called his death a “heartbreaking tragedy.”

“While nothing can undo the harm he suffered, today’s $20 million settlement awarded to his surviving siblings and grandmother provides some measure of support as they continue to heal,” she said in a statement. “Noah’s life was not in vain. His case has reinforced the need for ongoing review of child welfare cases, stronger partnerships with our schools, and a stabilized DCFS workforce to better protect children in the Antelope Valley. Noah leaves behind a legacy — he will not be forgotten.”

His great-grandmother, Hernandez, said she still thinks of him every day.

“I know that he’s not suffering anymore,” she said.

Former adult film actor Austin Wolf has received his prison sentence on two counts of child sexual exploitation.

Content warning: This story includes topics that could make some readers feel uncomfortable and/or upset.

On 26 September (Friday), US District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer sentenced the 44-year-old – whose real name is Justin Heath Smith – to 19 years in prison for one count of enticing a minor to engage in sexual activity and one count for engaging in a pattern of activity involving prohibited sexual conduct.

Alongside his prison sentence, the court imposed a $40,000 fine and 10 years of supervised release.

“Justin Heath Smith’s crimes against children are horrible. He targeted kids as young as seven, and every New Yorker wants him and those like him off our streets for as long as possible and never again near our children,” US Attorney for the Southern District of New York Jay Clayton said in a statement.

“The women and men of our Office, and our law enforcement partners, are laser-focused on ridding our streets of those who sexually exploit our children. The message to predators from our Office is clear: there is no place for you in New York other than prison.”

Smith’s sentencing comes over a year after he was first arrested for distributing and possessing child sex abuse videos on Telegram.

According to the official complaint, a detailed investigation into Smith first started in April 2024 after the intelligence and security service seized the phone of another Telegram user named ‘Target Telegram User-1.’

Instagram

While reviewing the individual’s records, they discovered a correspondence with another account named ‘Anon Anon,’ who was believed to be Smith.

During their exchange, which reportedly took place between 24 March and 28 March 2024, the two users allegedly shared “approximately 200 videos” of child pornography “that depicted children as young as infants,” the document read.

After their arrest, ‘Target Telegram User-1’ took part in an interview with authorities, revealing that they had previously met with ‘Anon Anon’ in person, and shared details that matched Smith’s – including “physical description, vocation, and approximate address,” the document continued.

After ‘Target Telegram User-1’ claimed that ‘Anon Anon’ kept child pornography on his home computer, law enforcement executed a search of Smith’s apartment, where they seized his phone and an SD card. 

On 20 June, nearly a year after his arrest, Smith pleaded guilty to enticement of a minor during his plea hearing.

According to the New York Post, the former adult film star admitted to the court to “inducing a 15-year-old to engage in a sex act” in late 2023 or early 2024.

“I don’t remember through text or [social media], but phones were definitely used. I know what I was doing was wrong,” Smith reportedly said in between sobs.

“I apologise. I knew it was wrong when I did it. I don’t blame anyone else for my conduct [although] it was another person engaging in the conduct. I take full 100 percent responsibility for my actions, and I am prepared for the consequences.”

For more information about the case, Smith’s plea agreement and statements made in court, click here.

PROVO, Utah — An attorney for the 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson’s newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Both the defense and prosecution acknowledged at a brief hearing Monday that the amount of evidence that prosecutors have is “voluminous.” Robinson was not present for the hearing and appeared via audio from jail at his defense team’s request.

Judge Tony Graf set the next hearing for Oct. 30.

Defense attorneys for Robinson and prosecutors with the Utah County attorney’s office declined to comment after Monday’s hearing. It took place in Provo, just a few miles from the Utah Valley University campus in Orem where many students are still processing trauma from the Sept. 10 shooting and the day-and-a-half search for the suspect.

Authorities arrested Robinson when he showed up with his parents at his hometown sheriff’s office in southwest Utah, more than a three-hour drive from the site of the shooting, to turn himself in. Prosecutors have since revealed text messages and DNA evidence that they say connect Robinson to the killing.

A note that Robinson left for his romantic partner before the shooting said he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices, “and I’m going to take it,” Utah County Atty. Jeff Gray told reporters before the first hearing. Gray also said Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred.”

The killing of Kirk, a close ally of President Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism, has galvanized Republicans who have vowed to carry on Kirk’s mission of moving American politics further right.

Trump has declared Kirk a “martyr” for freedom and threatened to crack down on what he called the “radical left.”

Workers across the U.S. have been punished or fired for speaking out about Kirk‘s death, including teachers, public and private employees and media personalities — most notably Jimmy Kimmel, whose late-night show was suspended then reinstated by ABC.

Kirk’s political organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, brought young, evangelical Christians into politics through his podcast, social media and campus events. Many prominent Republicans are filling in at the upcoming campus events Kirk planned to attend, including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Sen. Mike Lee at Utah State University on Tuesday.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

Kawhi Leonard mumbled his way through a few answers to questions Monday about his endorsement deal with Aspiration Partners that has triggered an NBA investigation into whether the Clippers circumvented the league salary cap.

The Clippers allowed only two reporters to ask about the deal during media day at Intuit Dome, refusing to give the microphone to additional reporters — including one from The Times — who raised their hands to ask questions. Leonard was ushered off the dais and out of sight.

“The NBA is going to do their job,” Leonard said. “None of us did no wrongdoing and, yeah, that’s it. We invite the investigation.”

Asked about his understanding of the endorsement deal and whether he performed any services, Leonard replied, “I understand the full contract and services that I had to do. Like I said, I don’t deal with conspiracies or the click-bait analysts or journalism that’s going on.

“I don’t think it’s accurate” that he provided no endorsement services to Aspiration, he said. “It’s old. This is all new to you guys. But the company went bankrupt a while ago, so we already knew this was going to happen.”

He added that he wasn’t paid all the money due to him, saying “I’m not sure [how much I’m owed]. I’ve got to go back and look at the books. … The company went belly up and it was fine.”

Clippers forward Kawhi Leonard speaks during media day at the Intuit Dome on Monday.

(Eric Thayer / Associated Press)

Lawrence Frank, Clippers president of basketball operations, was insistent that the investigation will exonerate owner Steve Ballmer and the franchise.

“We appreciate that there will be a clear-eyed look at these allegations,” Frank said. “And we are eager for the truth to come out.

“The assumptions and conclusions that have been made are disappointing and upsetting. And we expect the investigation will show that these allegations are wrong.”

The salary cap limits what teams can spend on player payroll to ensure parity and prevent the wealthiest teams from outspending smaller-market teams to acquire the best player. NBA Commissioner Adam Silver has called attempts to circumvent it a “cardinal sin.”

In this case, Leonard agreed to a $28-million contract for endorsement and marketing work for Aspiration, which went out of business in March. Players are allowed to have separate endorsement and other business deals. At issue in this case is whether the Clippers participated in arranging the side deal beyond simply introducing Aspiration executives to Leonard.

The most painful penalties the NBA could impose would be suspending Ballmer for a maximum of one year and docking the Clippers their first-round draft picks for up to five years. The team already is without a first-round pick in 2026 and 2028, having traded them away. Forfeiting the remaining picks through 2032 would make it harder for the Clippers to compete for their first-ever NBA championship.

“I hurt for Steve,” Frank said. “He’s one of the best people, most honorable people I’ve met. He does things the right way for the right reasons. And he constantly reminds us to stay on the right side of the rules.

“I also hurt for our players, our staff and fans. And, on a larger level, as I’ve learned about this over the past month, I feel bad for all the people defrauded by [Aspiration].”

Frank said a partition exists between team executives and companies that signed players for endorsements.

“Endorsement contracts are completely separate from player contracts,” he said. “So what a player makes, Kawhi, or any of our other players, in endorsement contracts, I have no idea.”

Ballmer, however, had a 2-3% ownership share in Aspiration and made separate investments of $50 million and $10 million in the company. Whether that same partition applied to him is something NBA investigators will examine, according to Michael McCann, a visiting professor of law at Harvard who has followed the situation closely.

Frank emphasized that the Clippers front office takes the salary cap rules seriously.

“The salary cap governs everything we do,” he said. “Our mission every day is to build the best team we can under the constraints of the cap. There is no gray area. There are no secret shortcuts. It’s clear what we are and are not allowed to do.”

Whether Leonard was as clear about the rules remains unknown. The forward who is under contract for two more seasons and $100 million said the upcoming season is all he’s thinking about.

“I’m not getting into any conspiracy theories or anything like that,” he said. “It’s about the season and what we’ve got ahead of us right now.”