County

The experiment of using Kookaburra cricket balls in some rounds of the County Championship has been scrapped.

Kookaburras have been used in some rounds for each of the past three seasons, but the move was largely unpopular due to the trend of bat dominating ball.

Directors of cricket from the 18 first-class counties expressed their desire to end the experiment in October.

And the decision was confirmed by a meeting of the England and Wales Cricket Board’s professional game committee (PGC) earlier this week.

It means all 14 rounds of the 2026 County Championship season will be played with balls manufactured by Dukes.

Dukes are the traditional supplier of cricket balls for first-class cricket played in England. Dukes balls are hand-stitched and, in general, offer more assistance to bowlers.

Kookaburra balls are machine made and are mainly used in countries like Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.

The Kookaburra ball was introduced into the County Championship with the idea of preparing English players for overseas conditions. The theory was that it would encourage bowlers of higher pace and lead to spin having an enhanced role.

It was used for two rounds of matches in 2023, and expanded to four rounds for 2024 and 2025.

Two rounds of Kookaburra matches earlier this summer, played in June, resulted in a lot of dull cricket. The average first-innings total across the Championship was 430, 59 individual scores of 100 or more were made and Surrey racked up 820-9 declared against Durham at The Oval.

The ECB’s high performance arm – those involved in the England teams rather than the county game – still stands by the decision to use the Kookaburra, however, which points to the conflicts within the game.

Speaking last month before the decision was confirmed, ECB men’s performance director Ed Barney said: “We valued the Kookaburra ball. Has it achieved what we intended to? Yes, 100%.

“To be most effective with the Kookaburra ball you have to bowl at a higher speed. Has it drawn more spin bowling into the domestic game? Yes it has.”

Statistics from the past three County Championship seasons shows the optimal bowling speeds with the Kookaburra were around 85mph, but 75-79mph with the Dukes.

Forty per cent of deliveries were bowled by spinners during Kookaburra rounds but only 25% when using the Dukes.

“Ultimately the domestic game has a decision to make of whether it wants its core purpose to be about producing and developing players for international cricket or whether its core purpose is about a product that is competitive and appealing to the domestic context,” added Barney.

“That is the choice the domestic game and ECB has to make, and it is quite difficult for it to co-exist together.”

The move to return to the Dukes for the entire Championship season comes after counties rejected proposals to restructure the competition.

A new set-up of 12 teams in the top flight and six in the bottom tier, with each side playing 13 matches, was turned down in favour of the current system.

The Championship will remain with 10 teams in Division One, eight in Division Two, all playing 14 matches.

Officials announced Thursday that Los Angeles County has automated the process of notifying law enforcement agencies when people who violate restraining orders fail to comply with judges’ orders to hand their guns over to authorities.

Previously, court clerks had to identify which of the county’s 88 law enforcement agencies to notify about a firearm relinquishment by looking up addresses for the accused, which could take multiple days, Presiding Judge Sergio C. Tapia II of the L.A. County Superior Court said during a news conference.

Now, “notices are sent within minutes” to the appropriate agencies, Tapia said.

“This new system represents a step forward in ensuring timely, consistent and efficient communication between the court and law enforcement,” he said, “helping to remove firearms from individuals who are legally prohibited from possessing them.”

According to a news release, the court launched the platform, which the Judicial Council of California funded with a $4.12 million grant in conjunction with the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department and district attorney’s office, and the L.A. Police Department and city attorney’s office.

The court also rolled out a new portal for law enforcement that “streamlines interagency communications by providing justice partners with a centralized list of relevant cases for review” and allows agencies “to view all firearm relinquishment restraining order violations within their jurisdiction,” according to the release.

The new digital approach “represents a major enhancement in public safety,” Luna said.

“Each of those firearms,” he said, “represents a potential tragedy prevented or a domestic violence situation that did not escalate, a life that was not lost to gun violence.”

L.A. County supervisors want to bar “predatory” salespeople who they say prey on vulnerable residents seeking benefits from the region’s social services offices.

The supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to explore creating a “buffer zone” outside county offices, prohibiting certain types of “aggressive” solicitation toward people seeking food stamps and cash aid. County lawyers have two months to figure out what such a zone would look like.

The looming crackdown follows a Times investigation that found seven people who said recruiters outside a social services office in South Los Angeles paid them to sue the county over sex abuse. Two more later told The Times they, too, were solicited for sex abuse lawsuits outside a county social services office in Long Beach, though they initially believed they were being recruited to be extras in a movie.

“We are painfully aware of the ongoing allegations of fraud and the pay-to-sue tactics used to recruit clients and file lawsuits against the county,” said Supervisor Janice Hahn, who announced she would push for the buffer zone after the Times investigation. “There must be greater accountability both to protect survivors seeking justice and to ensure that fraudulent claims and predatory solicitation are stopped at their source.”

The county’s more than 40 social services offices act as one-stop shops for residents who need help applying for food, housing and cash assistance. Outside many of the larger offices in poorer areas, a bustling ecosystem thrives with vendors hawking goods and services to those in line.

The supervisors said Tuesday they were troubled by some of the offerings.

“Vendors asking for copies of people’s personal documents, trying to sell them products and even recruiting people into claims against the county — this behavior puts residents at real risk and undermines the trust in our public services,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger said she wanted to see reforms that would protect both taxpayers and “vulnerable individuals who are being used as pawns to line the pockets of many of these attorneys.”

The motion passed 3 to 0. Supervisors Hilda Solis and Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the social services office where some of the lawsuit recruitment took place, were absent.

The Times spent two weeks outside the South L.A. office this fall and watched vendors seek out dozens of people with Medi-Cal, the state’s health insurance for low-income Californians. The vendors would pay them anywhere between $3 and $12 to undergo COVID and blood pressure tests, which they said would be billed to their state insurance. Some people said they routinely stopped by the location for quick cash.

Giveaways of free phones are also popular for those who are eligible through a government-subsidized program. Recipients have complained that the service on the phones was often short-lived, with some people returning to the kiosks within a few days after their number stopped working.

Leaders at the Department of Public Social Services, who oversee the offices, say they’re limited in what they can do outside their facilities. Many of the busiest locations are in Los Angeles or smaller cities, where the county has no authority. And regulating where vendors can go on public sidewalks has proved a reliable headache for local governments in the past.

Last year, the Los Angeles City Council eliminated the “no-vending zones” it had created in areas where it said street vendors would contribute to congestion. The ban was met with an outcry and a lawsuit from vendors who argued street vending had been decriminalized and the city could no longer outlaw the stands.

Eugene Volokh, a 1st Amendment professor and senior fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, said the county will have to be careful in defining what conduct is “predatory” and what is protected speech.

“The devil’s going to be in the details,” Volokh said. “Whenever you hear words like ‘predatory’ or ‘exploitative’ or ‘harassing’ or ‘bullying,’ you know you’re dealing with terms that are potentially very vague and often, by themselves, too vague to be legally usable terms.”

L.A. County supervisors have unanimously approved an $828-million settlement for alleged victims of childhood sexual abuse, finalizing the deal while questions mount over the legitimacy of some claims in a separate multibillion-dollar payout that they agreed to this spring.

The settlement approved Tuesday brings the county’s spending on sex abuse litigation this year to nearly $5 billion, with the bulk of that total coming from a $4-billion deal made in April to resolve thousands of claims filed by people who said they were abused decades ago in county-run juvenile detention centers and foster homes.

The latest settlement involves similar claims brought by 414 clients of three law firms who opted to negotiate separately from the rest. The $4-billion settlement initially covered roughly 6,800 claims, but has ballooned to more than 11,000.

The larger settlement has come under scrutiny after The Times found nine people who said they were paid to sue. Four said they were told to fabricate the claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, which represents more than 2,700 clients in the first settlement.

The firm has denied paying clients to sue and said it has “systems in place to help weed out false or exaggerated allegations.” The firm has asked the court to dismiss three claims on behalf of allegedly fraudulent plaintiffs this month.

Downtown LA Law Group will be required to detail any claims that came to it through recruiters, the county’s top attorney said Tuesday. The firm has denied any wrongdoing.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

The settlement approved Tuesday involves cases only from Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, and Panish Shea Ravipudi and has no cases from DTLA. But the firm nevertheless took center stage Tuesday as the supervisors pressed their top attorney on how the lawsuits were vetted.

“What were we doing prior to this article?” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, referencing The Times’ reporting from earlier this month.

The county was in a tough spot, county counsel Dawyn Harrison explained. Many plaintiff attorneys didn’t want the county interviewing their clients, she said. And a judge had temporarily paused the discovery process, providing the county little insight into the identities of the thousands of people suing.

Harrison said Tuesday that DTLA cases now will be required to go through a “completely new level of review” beyond the standard vetting that was already underway by retired Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Louis Meisinger. In addition to having a new retired Superior Court judge vet all their cases, DTLA must provide the county with information on plaintiffs acquired through “a recruiter or vendor,” she said.

“DTLA is required to identify every recruiter it used, a list of each plaintiff brought in per recruiter, information about any funds that changed hands, and a declaration under oath by each recruiter identifying what was done, what was said, and any monies paid,” Harrison said.

It’s an unusual request.

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 has denied knowledge of any of its clients receiving payments to sue and said the firm wants “justice for real victims” of sexual abuse.

“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,” the firm said.

The rush of lawsuits was kicked off by a now-controversial bill known as AB 218, which changed the statute of limitations for victims of sexual abuse and created a new window to sue. The county, which is responsible for the safety of children inside juvenile carceral facilities and foster care, has seen more than 12,000 claims and counting since the law took effect in 2020.

The allegations of fraud that now hover over these cases was the fault of “an unmanageable law,” not the county’s vetting process, Harrison said.

“AB 218 erased those guardrails and allowed decades-old claims that no one can meaningfully vet,” she said.

The county’s lawyers and politicians have become increasingly loud critics of the law, which they say has left them facing a deluge of decades-old claims with no records. Supervisor Hilda Solis said she felt the county had become the “guinea pig” for the bill.

Joe Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive officer, estimated that anywhere between $1 billion to $2 billion in county taxpayer money from the settlements will go to attorneys.

“The law had some very noble intentions but it has been … and I’m just going to say what I think, hijacked by the plaintiff’s bar,” he said. “They do all of the vetting, they do all of the intake, they advertise extensively. They’re incentivized to bring as many cases as possible.”

Nicchitta said he’d heard rumors that venture capitalists were poking around Sacramento to find out “whether or not we have enough cash to pay for another settlement, so that they can finance a law firm to bring another round of settlements against us.”

“It’s clear to me the system is ruptured,” he said.

Courtney Thom, who was the lead attorney on cases from Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, said she believed the county was blaming the new state law for the failures of its own lawyers.

“To blame AB 218 and say that’s what enabled the fraud is just a pathetic attempt to deflect responsibility,” Thom said. “Our firm has been saying for two years we’re concerned about fraud.”

Mike Arias, who represents clients in the latest settlement as a partner with Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, said the three firms involved stopped adding clients more than a year ago.

“That’s a big distinction,” Arias said. “We said, at the time, the number of plaintiffs would not change. Ethically, my view was that’s who we represent and who we’re going to negotiate for.”

Arias said the allocation for the second settlement will be done by retired Orange County Superior Court Judge Gail Andler, who specializes in overseeing sexual abuse litigation. Potential payouts will range between $750,000 and $3.25 million, he said.

Victims say the money represents a sliver of justice for the abuse they say they suffered while confined in county custody — little of which has been criminally prosecuted.

One man, who is part of the settlement and asked not to be identified, said he has no idea what happened to the probation official who he alleges raped him at around 16 while he was asleep in his cell at Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall, knocked out on sleep medication.

“I had no control in that place,” said the man, now 34. “My body hasn’t ever felt the same since.”

The county has launched an “AB 218 fraud hotline” where tipsters can report misconduct related to the flood of sex abuse claims.

(Rebecca Ellis / Los Angeles Times)

The county recently launched an “AB 218 fraud hotline” where tipsters can report misconduct related to the flood of claims. The county says it also plans to start a hotline for victims to safely report allegations of sex abuse in its facilities.

“It is illegal for anyone to file, pay for, or receive payments for making fake claims of childhood sexual abuse,” states a banner now running atop the county website with a hand doling out hundred-dollar bills.

The county also has launched a website that asks people to report if they were offered cash to sue, which law firms were involved, and whether they were coached, among other questions.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell, whose district includes the South Central social services office where seven people told The Times they were paid to sue, said she wanted to see the hotlines advertised as aggressively as the plaintiff attorneys advertised for their cases.

“You couldn’t turn on an urban radio station without hearing a commercial advertising these cases,” Mitchell said. “I certainly hope whatever we use, as we talk about our outreach, that we lean in as hard.”

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Rebecca Ellis, with an assist from David Zahniser, Noah Goldberg and Matt Hamilton, giving you the latest on city and county government.

There is no shortage of budget-busting costs facing Los Angeles County, Supervisor Lindsey Horvath recently told guests at this week’s Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum luncheon.

There’s the costly fire recovery effort. And the deep cuts from the federal government. And a continuing homeless crisis.

As Horvath wrapped up her remarks, Emma Schafer, the host of the clubby luncheon, asked about yet another expenditure: What was up with that $2-million settlement to the county’s chief executive officer Fesia Davenport?

“We were faced with two bad options,” Horvath told the crowd dining on skewered shrimp.

Horvath said she disagreed with Davenport’s demand for $2 million, but also believed “that we have to focus on a functional county government and saving taxpayer money.”

Three months ago, all five supervisors quietly voted behind closed doors to pay Davenport $2 million, after she sought damages due to professional fallout from Measure G, the voter-approved ballot measure that will eventually eliminate her job.

Measure G, which voters passed in November, reshaped the government, in part, turning the county’s chief executive into an elected position — not one selected by the board. The elected county executive, who would manage the county government and oversee its budget, will be in place by 2028. Davenport, a longtime county employee, had been in her post since 2021.

Davenport, as part of her financial demand, said Measure G caused her “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress.”

Critics contend unpleasant job changes happen all the time — and without the employee securing a multimillion dollar payout.

“Los Angeles County residents should be outraged,” said Morgan Miller, who worked on the Measure G campaign and called the board’s decision a “blatant misuse of public money.”

Horvath, who crafted Measure G, promised during the campaign it would not cost taxpayers additional money. More recently, she voiced dissatisfaction with Davenport’s settlement, saying the agreement should have had additional language to avoid “future risk.”

Horvath said in a statement she considered having the settlement agreement include language to have Davenport and the county part ways — to avoid the risk of litigating additional claims down the road.

Supervisor Janice Hahn, who pushed for Measure G alongside Horvath, said she voted for the settlement based on the advice of county lawyers.

“In the years I worked to expand the board and create an elected county executive, I never disparaged our current CEO in any way,” she said in a statement. “I always envisioned the CEO team working alongside the new elected county executive.”

Davenport has been on medical leave since earlier this month and did not return a request for comment. She has told the staff she plans to return at the start of next year.

It’s not unusual for county department heads to get large payouts. But they usually get them when they’re on their way out.

Bobby Cagle, the former Department of Children and Family Services head who resigned in 2021, received $175,301. Former county counsel Rodrigo Castro-Silva got $213,199. Adolfo Gonzales, the former probation head, took in $172,521. Mary Wickham, the former county counsel, received $449,577.

The county said those severance payments, all of which were obtained through a records request by The Times, were outlined in the department heads’ contracts and therefore did not need to be voted on by the board.

Sachi Hamai, Davenport’s predecessor, also received $1.5 million after saying she faced “unrelenting and brutal” harassment from former Sheriff Alex Villanueva.

Davenport’s settlement was voted on, but not made public, until an inquiry from LAist, which first reported on the settlement.

David Loy, legal director for the First Amendment Coalition, says the county is required under the Brown Act to immediately report out a vote taken on a settlement if the deal is finalized and all parties have approved it. But if it’s not, he says, they don’t need to publicly report it — they just need to provide information when asked.

“You don’t have to proactively report it out in that meeting. You still have to disclose it on request,” said Loy. “ I don’t think that’s a good thing — don’t get me wrong. I’m telling you what the Brown Act says.”

State of play

— DEMANDING DOCUMENTS: Two U.S. senators intensified their investigation into the Palisades fire this week, asking the city for an enormous trove of records on Fire Department staffing, reservoir repairs and other issues. In their letter to Council President Marqueece Harris-Dawson, Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) showed much less interest in the Eaton fire, which devastated Altadena but did not burn in the city of Los Angeles. An aide to County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said neither she nor other county offices had received such a document request.

— BUMPY BEGINNING: The campaign of City Council candidate Jose Ugarte is off to a rocky start. Ugarte, who is backed by his boss, Councilmember Curren Price, recently agreed to pay a $17,500 fine from the Ethics Commission for failing to mention his outside consulting work on his financial disclosure forms, But on Wednesday, two ethics commissioners blocked the deal, saying they think his fine should be bigger. (Ugarte has called the violation “an unintentional clerical error.”) Stay tuned!

— A NEW CHIEF: Mayor Karen Bass announced Friday that she has selected Jaime Moore, a 30-year LAFD veteran, to serve as the city’s newest fire chief. He comes to the department as it grapples with the continuing fallout over the city’s response to Palisades fire.

— LAWSUIT EN ROUTE: Meanwhile, the head of the city’s firefighter union has accused Bass of retaliating against him after he publicly voiced alarm over department staffing during the January fires. Freddy Escobar, president of United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112, said he’s preparing a lawsuit against the city. Escobar was suspended from his union position earlier this year, after an audit found that more than 70% of the transactions he made on his union credit card had no supporting documentation.

— HE’S BACK! (KINDA): Former Mayor Eric Garcetti returned to City Hall for the first time since leaving office in 2022, appearing alongside Councilmember Nithya Raman in the council chamber for a celebration of Diwali, the Hindu Festival of Lights. Garcetti, a former U.S. ambassador to India, described Diwali as a “reawakening,” saying it may be “the longest continuous human holiday on earth.”

— GENERATIONS OF GALPIN: The San Fernando Valley auto dealership known as Galpin Motors has had a long history with the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, the civilian oversight panel at the LAPD. On Wednesday, the council approved the nomination of Galpin vice president Jeffrey Skobin, to serve on the commission — making him the third executive with the dealership to serve over the past 40 years.

— AIRPORT OVERHAUL: Los Angeles World Airports is temporarily closing Terminal 5 at Los Angeles International Airport, carrying out a “complete demolition” and renovation of the space in the run-up to the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. During construction, JetBlue will be operating out of Terminal 1, Spirit shifts to Terminal 2 and American Airlines lands in Terminal 4, the airport agency said.

— OUT THE DOOR: Two of the five citizen commissioners who oversee the Department of Water and Power have submitted their resignations. DWP Commissioner George McGraw, appointed by Bass two years ago, told The Times he’d been laying the groundwork for a departure for six months. McGraw said he found he could no longer balance the needs of the commission, where he sometimes put in 30 to 40 hours per week, with the other parts of his life. “I needed extra capacity,” he said.

— NO MORE MIA: DWP Commissioner Mia Lehrer was a little more blunt, telling Bass in her Sept. 29 resignation letter that her stint on the board was negatively affecting her work at Studio-MLA, her L.A.-based design studio. Lehrer said the firm has been disqualified from city projects based on “misinterpretations” of her role on the commission.

“As a result, I am experiencing unanticipated limitations on my professional opportunities that were neither expected nor justified under existing ethical frameworks,” she wrote. “These constraints not only affect my own business endeavors but also carry significant consequences for the forty-five professional and their families who rely on the continued success of our work.”

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to address homelessness went to Cotner Avenue near the 405 Freeway in Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky’s Westside district.
• On the docket next week: The board votes Tuesday on an $828-million payout to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children. The vote comes months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

Los Angeles County is poised to pay out an additional $828 million to victims who say they were sexually abused in county facilities as children, months after agreeing to the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

The award, posted on the county claims board agenda Friday, would resolve an additional 414 cases that were not included in the $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this spring. Both the supervisors and the county claims board will need to vote on the payout before it is finalized.

The record $4-billion settlement covered more than 11,000 people, who say they were abused inside county-run juvenile facilities and foster homes as children. The individual payouts will range from $100,000 to $3 million.

The newest payout would break down to an average of roughly $2 million per person. It involves cases from three prominent law firms: Manly, Stewart & Finaldi, Arias Sanguinetti Wang & Team, and Panish Shea Ravipudi.

The firms declined to comment on the potential settlement until the vote by the Board of Supervisors.

The announcement follows reporting by The Times that found nine plaintiffs who say they were paid by recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse. Four of them have said they were explicitly told to make up claims. All had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA.

The firm has denied any involvement with recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs to sue. DTLA said previously it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and is conducting new screenings to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

The county said any claims brought by DTLA will undergo an additional level of review before payments are made, citing reporting by The Times. The extra screening “may require plaintiff interviews and additional proof of allegations,” the county said.

DTLA did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

The exterior of Downtown LA Law Group’s offices in Los Angeles.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who recently launched an investigation into the $4-billion settlement following The Times’ reporting, said the vetting will ensure “money goes only to the true victims of abuse.”

“Our settlements balance our obligation to compensate victims and treat their experiences with compassion with the need to put strong protections in place to protect taxpayers from fraud,” she said.

County Counsel Dawyn Harrison says she wants to see the law changed so “unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

“The conduct alleged to have occurred by the DTLA firm is absolutely outrageous and must be investigated by the appropriate authorities,” said Harrison. “Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation.”

All cases will be reviewed by retired judges before the money is allocated, the county said.

If a judge believes a claim is fraudulent, the plaintiff will not get any money, the county said Friday. The county’s original plan stated that if the county found a fraudulent claim, the plaintiff could be offered $50,000 to resolve it or remove the case from the settlement so that it could be litigated separately.

The flood of claims was unleashed with the passage of Assembly Bill 218 in 2020, which changed the statute of limitations and gave survivors a new window to sue their abusers. Since then, school districts and governments have faced many decades-old claims, for which they say there are no longer records kept on file to allow for vetting.

Dominique Anderson, pictured above around age 11, is among the plaintiffs who sued the county for alleged sexual abuse and would stand to receive payouts as part of a new settlement announced Friday.

(Courtesy of Dominique Anderson)

County supervisors have been increasingly critical of the law, which they argue has left them defenseless against claims dating back to the 1950s. If the supervisors approve the new settlement, the county will have paid out nearly $5 billion in child sex abuse lawsuits this year — with more to come.

The county is still facing an additional 2,500 cases, which they say will further strain the region’s social safety net. The county recently required most departments trim their budgets to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

“L.A. County and other local governments must balance their obligations to past victims with the need to avoid ruinous financial impacts,” said acting Chief Executive Joe Nicchitta.

It felt like the kind of thing that must happen in Hollywood all the time: a hundred bucks to be a movie extra.

Austin Beagle, 31, and Nevada Barker, 30, said they were trying to sign up for food stamps this spring when someone offered them a background role outside a county social services office in Long Beach. They thought the gig seemed intriguing, albeit a bit unusual.

The offer came not from a casting director, but a man hawking free cellphones. The filming location was, oddly enough, a law firm in downtown Los Angeles.

Like many DTLA clients, Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker signed a retainer agreement that entitles the firm to 45% of their payout.

(Joe Garcia / For The Times)

Maybe this was how actors were recruited here, they figured. The couple had recently moved from the remote ranching town of Stinnett in the Texas panhandle, and the recruiter seemed to appreciate their Southern drawl. They hopped on a bus, excited to make $200 between them.

“They said we’d be extras,” said Beagle, who was unemployed at the time. “But when we got to the office, that’s not what it was at all.”

The couple said they arrived at the lobby of Downtown LA Law Group. A Times investigation published earlier this month found seven plaintiffs represented by the firm who claimed they received cash from recruiters to sue the county over sex abuse, which could violate state law. Two said they had never been abused and were told to manufacture their claims.

Downtown LA Law Group has denied any involvement with the recruiters who allegedly paid plaintiffs. The firm said in a statement it would never “encourage or tolerate anyone lying about being abused” and has been conducting additional screening to remove “false or exaggerated claims” from its caseload.

Four days after The Times’ investigation was published, the firm asked for a lawsuit on behalf of Carlshawn Stovall, one of the men who said he fabricated claims, to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled.

The firm requested a second case spurred by Juan Fajardo, who said he made up a claim using the name of a family member, to be dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 9 after Fajardo says he told lawyers he wanted to drop the lawsuit.

Now, with Beagle and Barker, two more have come forward to allege they were told to invent the stories that led to their lawsuits.

Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker said they’d been in Southern California only a few months when they were flagged down outside a social services office where they were hoping to enroll in food stamps. The couple have since moved back to Stinnett, Texas.

(Joe Garcia / For The Times)

The couple said that when they arrived at DTLA’s offices in April, a man came down to the lobby with a clipboard and gave them a piece of paper to memorize before going upstairs. They assumed this was the role they’d be playing — with room to go off script.

“They told us to say that we were sexually abused and harassed by the guards in … Las P? I can’t think of the institution’s name,” said Beagle, who added he was told to say the incidents occurred around 2005.

“The worse it was the better,” he recalled being told.

On April 29, Downtown LA Law Group filed a lawsuit against the county on behalf of 63 plaintiffs, including Beagle and Barker, who claimed they were abused at Los Padrinos, L.A. County’s juvenile hall in Downey. The couple are now part of the $4-billion settlement.

Allegations of potential fraud and pay-to-sue tactics have rocked both L.A. County government and powerhouse law firms, which are scrambling to figure out how to salvage the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history.

Perhaps no group has been shaken more than sex abuse victims themselves, who fear allegations of false claims could derail what they hoped would be a life-changing settlement.

“I just couldn’t believe it,” said Jimmy Vigil, 45, who sued the county in December 2022 for alleged sexual abuse by a probation officer at a detention camp in Lancaster.

Vigil said he was repeatedly molested as a 14-year-old and forced to masturbate in front of other teens while the guard watched.

“It makes me feel disgusted,” said Vigil, now a mental health case manager in Ventura County. “You have absolutely no clue what I went through. You have no clue how hard I have strived in life to make it to where I am at today.”

Jimmy Vigil, now a mental health case worker in Ventura, said he was repeatedly molested as a teenager and forced to masturbate in front of other teens.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

Barker and Beagle said that after memorizing the card with the basics of their story, they were taken upstairs to a room at DTLA’s office where about 20 people were waiting. Everyone seemed confused, they said.

They “were asking us ‘Hey, did y’all promise to get paid? And we said ‘Yeah, somebody told us that we’d get paid $100 if we come in,” Beagle said. “Everybody was just concerned about getting paid whatever they were promised.”

DTLA said in a statement it has “never directed, nor do we have any knowledge that anyone was ever paid, hired, or brought to the DTLA office, or was asked to memorize a script of any kind under the guise of filmmaking,”

“We are not filmmakers,” the firm said. “No one authorized on behalf of the firm has ever promised or implied movie extra work as a means of retaining clients.”

Beagle and Barker said they were called in together to a glass cubicle where a woman spent 15-20 minutes asking them questions about their story of abuse. Barker said she struggled to come up with details because “it was all made-up stuff.”

Beagle said he thought maybe the staffers in the law firm were also acting, pretending not to know this was “a fake thing.”

“Like, they were testing us all out to see if we knew how to act — just play the part,” Beagle said. “Like, this was a trial thing.”

The couple said they were befuddled at the interaction but figured they’d done enough to get their money; the receptionist told them to come back in a few hours to collect.

The firm said, in some circumstances, it provides “interest free loans to clients once they have retained our services.”

Beagle and Barker said they frittered away two hours at Pershing Square a few blocks away until around 4 p.m. It was only when they came back to the firm, they said, that it became clear there was no movie.

A man named Kevin paid them $100 each, and told them they were part of a massive settlement involving juvenile halls they’d never heard about until that afternoon. The man told them they could get $100 for each additional person they referred to go through the same process, Beagle said.

“We walked out thinking I don’t know how legit this is and we might even get f— in trouble for it,” Beagle said.

Like most sexual abuse lawsuits, the suit was filed using only plaintiffs’ initials. The Times reviewed paperwork that DTLA provided to Beagle and Barker, which they signed in order to become clients on April 21 and to opt into the L.A. County settlement on May 29.

Under the settlement, each plaintiff could be eligible for anywhere from $100,000 to $3 million. Retainer agreements for Beagle and Barker reviewed by The Times show DTLA would get 45% of their payout.

Beagle and Barker said they aren’t banking on getting any money from L.A. County. After all, they said, they grew up in Texas, more than a thousand miles away from the abuse-plagued facilities.

“We need it, but it’s not ours. It’s like finding a wallet,” Barker said. “Return it.”

A Times investigation published earlier this month found plaintiffs represented by Downtown LA Law Group who claimed they received cash from recruiters to sue L.A. County over sex abuse. Four now say they were told to make up the claims.

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

Among some survivors, there is a palpable fear that the fraud allegations will steamroll the settlement, overshadowing the fact that many county-run facilities were home to unchecked abuse and torpedoing their chance of receiving a life-changing sum.

The Times interviewed eight victims for this article represented by Slater Slater Schulman, ACTS LAW Firm, McNicholas & McNicholas, and Becker Law Group. Many said they were aghast at learning the worst years of their life may have become fodder for quick cash.

“It felt like a kick in the gut,” said Trinidad Pena, 52. “For somebody just to lie about it was just sickening.”

On Sept. 18, Pena said, she was eating a pancake breakfast at a homeless services center in Long Beach when she learned she had something in common with a woman sitting on the picnic bench next to her.

Both had filed lawsuits against L.A. County alleging sexual abuse at county-run facilities. Both of them were part of the county’s $4-billion settlement. But she was the only one, she believed, who had actually been abused.

The woman told her she’d been paid $20 to sue by a woman who hung around on the sidewalk outside the community center clutching a clipboard, she said.

The Times could not reach the recruiters allegedly responsible for paying plaintiffs for comment.

Trinidad Pena, who sued in 2022 over sex abuse, said she was jarred to find herself at breakfast with a woman who told her she’d been paid to sue the county.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

Pena sued L.A. County in December 2022 over an alleged rape when she was 12 by a staff member at MacLaren Children’s Center, a shuttered youth shelter now infamous for predatory staff. No amount of cash is going to erase the scars from that, she says. But it would help.

Last month, Pena traded in her New Orleans shotgun apartment for the streets of Southern California, where she was raised. The move was, she said, a Hail Mary attempt to get medical treatment through the state’s public benefits for a cyst sprouting behind her right eye that made her vision wobble and her head crackle with pain.

She is currently living on $1,206 a month in and out of her van with a failing shunt in her head, which doctors implanted to treat her cyst. She eats mostly the nonperishable Trader Joe’s snacks she brought from Louisiana.

A six- or seven-figure settlement could help save her life, Pena said.

“I’m going to have myself a hell of a Charlie Sheen party and take a nosedive off a balcony at the Chateau Marmont if I do not get some sort of relief,” said Pena, who says she grew up in foster care near the legendary West Hollywood hotel.

Part of what has made the false claims so infuriating, victims say, is that L.A. County youth detention facilities were indeed home to horrific abuse decades ago.

Kizzie Jones, 47, said she’s on antidepressants as a result of a female probation officer who allegedly molested her twice a week and groomed her with bags of chips and bottles of conditioner.

Robert Williams, 41, says he has no friends — a near-total isolation he said traces back to repeated sexual assaults in the shower he suffered as a teen.

Mario Paz, 39, said a guard molested him under the guise of soothing his genitals with milk after he was pepper sprayed while naked. The abuse, he says, has left him traumatized to the point that he is unable to change his children’s Pampers.

All three of them filed lawsuits against the county alleging sexual abuse by county probation officers.

Mario Paz, 39, said his time at Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall left him traumatized and damaged the relationship he has with his own children.

(Christina House / Los Angeles Times)

“For someone to capitalize on something that they never endured or never experienced, I think it’s a travesty,” said Cornelious Thompson, a 51-year-old community health worker, who sued the county in December 2022.

When he was around 13 at Los Padrinos, Thompson says he was put on psychiatric medication that knocked him out. He woke up in his unit sore with his pants hanging by his knees, bleeding. It took him years to tell anyone.

He said he recently lost his job with a contractor for the county’s health department due to budget cuts. The county had to slash spending, in part, to pay for the $4-billion settlement.

It was “bittersweet,” he says, losing his job because the county was finally paying for what he said he endured as a teenager.

Only now, a new fear has crept in as two more people say they made up claims: Will he still be believed?

CHICAGO — Cook County’s top judge signed an order barring ICE from arresting people at court. Cook County includes Chicago, which has seen a federal immigration crackdown in recent months.

Detaining residents outside courthouses has been a common tactic for federal agents, who have been stationed outside county courthouses for weeks, making arrests and drawing crowds of protesters.

The order, which was signed Tuesday night and took effect Wednesday, bars the civil arrest of any “party, witness, or potential witness” while going to court proceedings. It includes arrests inside courthouses and in parking lots, surrounding sidewalks and entryways.

“The fair administration of justice requires that courts remain open and accessible, and that litigants and witnesses may appear without fear of civil arrest,” the order states.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defended the practice of making arrests at courthouses, calling it “common sense.”

“We aren’t some medieval kingdom; there are no legal sanctuaries where you can hide and avoid the consequences for breaking the law,” DHS said in a Wednesday statement. “Nothing in the constitution prohibits arresting a lawbreaker where you find them.”

Immigration advocates decry immigration enforcement outside courthouses

Local immigration and legal advocates, including the county’s public defender’s office, have called for an order like this, saying clients were avoiding court out of fear of being detained. The office has confirmed at least a dozen immigration arrests at or near county courthouses since the end of July, when representatives said they’ve seen U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s presence outside courthouses increase.

“I have had numerous conversations with clients who are presented with a difficult decision of either missing court and receiving an arrest warrant or coming to court and risk being arrested by ICE,” Cruz Rodriguez, an assistant public defender with the office’s immigration division, said at a news conference earlier this month.

Domestic violence advocacy organizations also signed on to a petition earlier this month calling for Cook County Circuit Chief Judge Timothy Evans to issue the order. This comes after advocates said a woman was was arrested by ICE last month while entering the domestic violence courthouse.

Alexa Van Brunt, director of MacArthur Justice Center’s Illinois office, which filed the petition, said she was “gratified” by Evans’ order.

“This is a necessary and overdue action to ensure that the people of Cook County can access the courts without fear,” she said in a Wednesday statement to the Associated Press.

Evans said justice “depends on every individual’s ability to appear in court without fear or obstruction.”

“Our courthouses remain places where all people — regardless of their background or circumstance — should be able to safely and confidently participate in the judicial process,” Evans said in a statement.

ICE tactics outside courthouses seen across country

The tactic of detaining people at courthouses in the Chicago area is part of a larger jump in courthouse immigration arrests across the country. The flurry of immigration enforcement operations at courthouses has been condemned by judicial officials and legal organizations, and has drawn lawsuits from some states and the adoption of bills seeking to block the practice.

In June, President Donald Trump’s administration sued the state of New York over a 2020 law barring federal immigration agents from making arrests at state, city and other municipal courthouses.

Statehouse Democrats vow to adopt resolutions condemning federal immigration crackdown

Opening the second day of the six-day fall legislative session in Springfield, Ill., House Speaker Emanuel “Chris” Welch decried the federal government’s immigration squeeze and vowed that his majority Democrats would use floor time Wednesday to adopt resolutions condemning the action.

“We won’t sit back and let our democracy be taken from us,” Welch said at the Capitol, surrounded by two dozen of his caucus members

Questioned about the practical impact of resolutions, Welch said there also are discussions about legislation to restrict federal agents’ patrol statewide. He lambasted reports of ICE arrests in medical facilities and applauded Evans’ ruling prohibiting warrantless arrests near courthouses.

“If we can do something similar statewide, I’d love to get that done,” Welch said. “These should be safe spaces.”

Republicans questioned their opponents’ sincerity. Debating a resolution condemning political violence, GOP Rep. Adam Niemerg noted incendiary language from Gov. JB Pritzker — in the spring he called for “street fighters” to oppose the administration — although the governor has not espoused violence. Rep. Nicole La Ha, who said she has received death threats, accused Democrats of trying to stifle opposition.

“This is not a stand against violence,” La Ha said. “It is a tasteless tactic to punish dissent and difference of opinion.”

Illinois governor denounces tear gas use on protesters

Meanwhile, Pritzker suggested federal agents may have violated a ruling by a federal judge last week that said they could not use tear gas, pepper spray and other weapons on journalists and peaceful protesters after a coalition of news outlets and protesters sued over the actions of federal agents during protests outside a Chicago-area ICE facility. Pritzker said he expected the attorneys involved to “go back to court to make sure that is enforced against ICE”

“ICE is causing this mayhem,” he said. “They’re the ones throwing tear gas when people are peacefully protesting.”

The comments also come after Pritzker denounced Border Patrol agents for using tear gas on protesters who gathered Tuesday after a high-speed chase on a residential street on Chicago’s South Side.

A few protesters also gathered Wednesday afternoon outside an ICE facility in the west Chicago suburb of Broadview, where a fence that has been at the center of a recent lawsuit had come down.

A judge ordered ICE to remove the fence after the village of Broadview sued federal authorities for “illegally” erecting an 8-foot-tall fence outside the facility, blocking public streets and creating problems for local emergency services trying to access the area. On Monday, state legislators and Black mayors of nearby suburbs gathered outside the facility to demand the fence be removed and announce an executive order limiting protests in the area to designated zones. Trump has long targeted Black mayors in large Democratic cities, many of whom have voiced solidarity with one another in recent months amid federal interventions in their areas.

Community efforts to oppose ICE have also ramped up in the nation’s third-largest city, where neighborhood groups have assembled to monitor ICE activity and film any incidents involving federal agents in their areas.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people attended “Whistlemania” events across the city and made thousands of “whistle kits” with whistles, “Know Your Rights” flyers and instructions on how to use them to alert neighbors of when immigration enforcement agents are nearby.

An increasing number of GoFundMe pages have also been launched to pay for legal costs for community members detained by ICE, most recently a landscaper and father of three children detained earlier this month.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP writer John O’Connor in Springfield contributed.

Fesia Davenport, L.A. County’s chief executive officer, received a $2 million settlement this summer due to professional fallout from Measure G, a voter-approved ballot measure that will soon make her job obsolete, according to a letter she wrote to the county’s top lawyer.

Davenport wrote in the July 8 letter, which was released through a public record request Tuesday, that she had been seeking $2 million for “reputational harm, embarrassment, and physical, emotional and mental distress caused by the Measure G.”

“Measure G is an unprecedented event, and has had, and will continue to have, an unprecedented impact on my professional reputation, health, career, income, and retirement,” Davenport wrote to County Counsel Dawyn Harrison. “My hope is that after setting aside the amount of my ask, that there can be a true focus on what the real issues are here – measure G has irrevocably changed my life, my professional career, economic outlook, and plans for the future.”

The existence of the $2 million settlement, finalized in mid-August, was first reported Tuesday by the LAist. It was unclear what the settlement was for.

Davenport began a medical leave last week. She told staff she expects to be back early next year.

Supervisors Lindsey Horvath and Janice Hahn first announced Measure G in July 2024, branding it as a long overdue overhaul to the county’s sluggish bureaucracy. Under the charter amendment, which voters approved this November, the number of supervisors increased to nine and the county chief executive, who manages the county government and oversees its budget, will be now be elected by voters instead of appointed by the board starting in 2028.

In August 2024, a few weeks after the announcement, Davenport wrote a letter to Horvath saying the measure had impugned her “professional reputation” and would end her career at least two years earlier than she expected, according to another letter released through a public records request.

“This has been a tough six weeks for me,” Davenport wrote in her letter. “It has created uncomfortable, awkward interactions between me and my CEO team (they are concerned), me and other departments heads (they are apologetic), and even County outsiders (they think I am being fired).”

This story will be updated.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s Rebecca Ellis with an assist from Julia Wick, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Los Angeles County’s Board of Supervisors met for hours in closed session with attorneys Tuesday to ponder a legal quandary about as thorny as they come.

What do you do with a $4-billion sex abuse settlement when some plaintiffs say they were paid to sue?

On one hand, the supervisors emphasized, they want victims to get the compensation they’re owed for abuse they suffered at the hands of county employees. That’s why they green-lighted the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history this April.

But the allegations of paid plaintiffs, surfaced by The Times last week, have also raised concerns about potential misconduct. The supervisors stated the obvious Tuesday: They do not want taxpayer money set aside for victims going to people who were never in county facilities.

“The entire process angers and sickens me,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who first called for the investigation into the payout, at the meeting Tuesday. “We must ensure that nothing like this ever happens again.”

A Times investigation last week found seven people who said they were paid by recruiters to sue L.A. County for sex abuse. Two of them said they were explicitly told to fabricate claims. All the people who said they were paid had lawsuits filed by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, which has about 2,700 clients in the settlement.

DTLA has denied paying anyone to file a lawsuit and said no representative of the firm had been authorized to make payments. The Times could not reach any of the representatives who allegedly made the payments for comment.

“We have always worked hard to present only meritorious claims and have systems in place to help weed out false or exaggerated allegations,” the firm said in a statement.

The allegations dropped a bomb on the nearly finalized legal settlement, leaving county attorneys and plaintiffs lawyers scrambling to figure out the best path forward.

Some have called for the county to get out of the settlement half a year after announcing it. Technically, it can. The settlement agreement, reviewed by The Times, has a clause that allows the county to pull out unless all but 120 of the plaintiffs agree to the terms — a number attorneys could almost certainly surpass with more than 11,000 plaintiffs.

But the county does not appear to be relishing the thought of blowing up a settlement that took months of negotiations, countless hours in a courtroom and one can only guess how much in billable attorney hours. Many of these cases, attorneys for the county warn, could cost tens of millions in a trial. Clearing them all at once for $4 billion could, believe it or not, end up sounding like a bargain.

No decision was made Tuesday after hours in closed session. The only news out of it was the announcement that Fesia Davenport, the chief executive, would be going on medical leave for the next few months. She will be temporarily replaced by Joe Nicchitta, the office’s second-in-command.

Davenport emphasized the reasons for her absence were personal and had nothing to do with the settlement after rumors immediately swirled connecting the two.

“I am deeply disappointed that I have to address baseless allegations that my leave is somehow related to the County’s AB 218 settlement — which it is not,” she said in a statement. “I am on medical leave and expect to return to work in early 2026.”

Next Tuesday, the supervisors plan to meet again in closed session to grapple with the settlement, according to the board agenda.

In the aftermath of the investigation, some county watchdogs have called for the government to better screen the claims it’s poised to pay out.

“There was a lack of the basics,” said Eric Preven, a local government observer, who said he’s worried about the effect of unvetted lawsuits on the government. “What have we done?”

“We’re glad the supervisors are finally doing their jobs, but what took them so long?” said the Daily News editorial board.

County counsel says they’re working on it. They’ve demanded “evidentiary statements” for each victim and search for whatever documentation exists, the office said in a statement.

“But the simple truth is this: Los Angeles County is facing more than 11,000 claims, most of which are decades old, where evidence is scarce or nonexistent,” the statement read. “Survivors and taxpayers deserve a process with integrity, not one that rewards coercion, shortcuts, or abuse of the system.”

Some victims say they’re concerned the allegations of paid plaintiffs will taint the settlement and delay justice for legitimate survivors.

Tanina Evans, 47, said she spent her childhood bouncing around county-run juvenile halls and group homes. She sued the county after she said she was sexually abused multiple times, including once at Eastlake Juvenile Hall, where she says she was forced to give a staff member oral sex in the shower. When she refused, she said, the staff member had the teenagers she was incarcerated with beat her up.

She said she worries experiences like hers will now be looked at with new skepticism.

“People are so quick to justify not penalizing anyone. Are they looking for a loophole?” Evans said. “And it’s like, no, you guys know it’s real.”

State of play

— PALISADES ARREST AND FALLOUT: Federal prosecutors filed charges Wednesday in the Palisades fire, accusing Jonathan Rinderknecht, 29, of starting the initial fire on New Year’s Day that rekindled to become the devastating blaze days later. 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, our colleague Jenny Jarvie reports.

—NEW FINDINGS: With the federal investigation tied up, Mayor Karen Bass’ office released a long-awaited after-action report finding that firefighters were hampered by an ineffective process for recalling them back to work, as well as poor communication, inexperienced leadership and a lack of resources.

—2022 NEVER ENDS, SCREENTIME EDITION: Speaking at Bloomberg’s Screentime conference Wednesday, Bass characterized her former mayoral opponent and frequent critic Rick Caruso as “sad and bitter.” Earlier in the day, Caruso had put out a statement in response to the charges filed against Rinderknecht that called the Palisades fire “a failure of government on an epic level, starting with Mayor Bass.” During a separate appearance at the Screentime conference, Caruso shot back at Bass, saying anger was an appropriate response to the contents of the report. Caruso still hasn’t said whether he plans to run for mayor or governor next year, or sit out the 2026 election.

—BUT THEY WEREN’T JUST FIGHTING! A day later, Bass called on the City Council to adopt an ordinance that would help establish a one-time exemption to Measure ULA, the city’s so-called “mansion tax,” for Palisades fire-affected properties, to speed up sales and spur rebuilding and rehabilitation of the area. Bass’ office said her letter to the council followed a meeting with Caruso, who had “proposed ideas to help address this issue.”

—FAREWELL, FORKISH: LAPD public information director Jennifer Forkish resigned Thursday at the request of Chief Jim McDonnell, amid accusations from the region’s top federal prosecutor that her office was leaking information. But Forkish vehemently denied the “baseless allegation” that she had leaked anything.

—GARBAGE MONEY: City Council voted Tuesday to finalize a dramatic fee increase for residential trash collection, after giving the fee hike preliminary approval back in April. This is the first time the fees have been raised in 17 years and the city was heavily subsidizing the program, at the cost of roughly $500,000 a day.

—PAYOUT IN SPOTLIGHT: The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to launch an investigation into possible misconduct by “legal representatives” involved in sex abuse litigation. The county auditor’s office also will set up a hotline dedicated to tips from the public related to the lawsuits.

— MUSICAL CHAIRS: Former FBI agent Erroll Southers plans to step down from the L.A. Police Commission, my colleague Libor Jany reported Friday. Southers has been a member of the panel since 2023, when Bass picked him to serve out the term of a departing commissioner. His appointment to a full five-year term was supposed to come before the City Council a few weeks ago, but instead the council continued the matter — setting off a bizarre bureaucratic chain of events that led to Southers essentially being confirmed by default due to city rules and the council’s inaction (too complicated to fully summarize here, but Libor explained it all in his story at the time).

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? Bass’ initiative addressed an encampment on Lincoln Boulevard in Westchester, in partnership with Councilmember Traci Park’s office.
• On the docket next week: The board will vote on a state of emergency over recent federal immigration actions to provide the supervisors with more power to assist those affected by the flood of deportations. And, over in City Hall, the council’s public safety committee will consider the mayor’s appointment of Jeffrey Skobin to the police commission on Wednesday.

Stay in touch

That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to [email protected]. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.

A judge temporarily blocked California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s attempt to take over Los Angeles County’s beleaguered juvenile halls on Friday, finding that despite evidence of a “systemic failure” to improve poor conditions, Bonta had not met the legal grounds necessary to strip away local control.

After years of scandals — including frequent drug overdoses and incidents of staff violence against youths — Bonta filed a motion in July to place the county’s juvenile halls in “receivership,” meaning a court-appointed monitor would manage the facilities, set their budgets and oversee the hiring and firing of staff. An ongoing staffing crisis previously led a state oversight body to deem two of L.A. County’s halls unfit to house children.

L.A. County entered into a settlement with the California Department of Justice in 2021 to mandate improvements, but oversight bodies and a Times investigation earlier this year found the Probation Department was falling far short of fixing many issues, as required by the agreement.

On Friday, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Peter A. Hernandez chastised Bonta for failing to clearly lay out tasks for the Probation Department to abide by in the 2021 settlement. Hernandez said the attorney general’s office’s filings failed to show that a state takeover would lead to “a transformation of the juvenile halls.”

The steps the Probation Department needs to take to meet the terms of the settlement have been articulated in court filings and reports published by the L.A. County Office of the Inspector General for several years. Hernandez was only assigned to oversee the settlement in recent months and spent much of Friday’s hearing complaining about a lack of “clarity” in the case.

Hernandez wrote that Bonta’s motion had set off alarm bells about the Probation Department’s management of the halls.

“Going forward, the court expects all parties to have an ‘all-hands’ mentality,” the judge wrote in a tentative ruling earlier this week, which he adopted Friday morning.

Hernandez said he would not rule out the possibility of a receivership in the future, but wanted more direct testimony from parties, including Probation Department Chief Guillermo Viera Rosa and the court-appointed monitor over the settlement, Michael Dempsey. A hearing was set for Oct. 24.

The attorney general’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The Department remains fully committed to making the necessary changes to bring our juvenile institutions to where they need to be,” Vicky Waters, the Probation Department’s chief spokesperson, said in a statement. “However, to achieve that goal, we must have both the authority and support to remove barriers that hinder progress rather than perpetuate no-win situations.”

The California attorney general’s office began investigating L.A. County’s juvenile halls in 2018 and found probation officers were using pepper spray excessively, failing to provide proper educational and therapeutic programming and detaining youths in solitary confinement for far too long.

Bonta said in July that the county has failed to improve “75%” of what they were mandated to change in the 2021 settlement.

A 2022 Times investigation revealed a massive staffing shortage was leading to significant injuries for both youths and probation officers. By May of 2023, the California Board of State and Community Corrections ordered Barry J. Nidorf Juvenile Hall in Sylmar shuttered due to unsafe conditions. That same month, an 18-year-old died of an overdose while in custody.

The county soon reopened Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall in Downey, but the facility quickly became the site of a riot, an escape attempt and more drug overdoses. Last year, the California attorney general’s office won indictments against 30 officers who either orchestrated or allowed youths to engage in “gladiator fights.” That investigation was sparked by video of officers allowing eight youths to pummel another teen inside Los Padrinos, which has also been deemed unfit to house youths by a state commission.

In court Friday, Laura Fair, an attorney from the attorney general’s office, said that while she understood Hernandez’s position, she expressed concern that teens are still in danger while in the Probation Department’s custody.

“The youth in the halls continue to be in grave danger and continue to suffer irreparable harm every day,” she said.

Fair told the court that several youths transferred out of Los Padrinos under a separate court order in recent weeks showed up at Nidorf Juvenile Hall with broken jaws and arms.

She declined to comment further outside the courtroom. Waters, the Probation Department’s spokesperson, said she was unaware of the situation Fair was describing but would look into it.

Despite the litany of fiascoes over the last few years, probation leaders still argued in court filings that Bonta had gone too far.

“The County remains open to exploring any path that will lead to better outcomes. But it strongly opposes the DOJ’s ill-conceived proposal, which will only harm the youth in the County’s care by sowing chaos and inconsistency,” county lawyers wrote in an opposition motion submitted last month. “The DOJ’s request is almost literally without precedent. No state judge in California history has ever placed a correctional institution into receivership.”

Under the leadership of Viera Rosa, who took office in 2023, the Probation Department has made improvements to its efforts to keep drugs out of the hall, rectify staffing issues and hold its own officers accountable for misconduct, the county argued.

The department has placed “airport-grade” body scanners and drug-sniffing dogs at the entrances to both Nidorf and Los Padrinos in order to stymie the influx of narcotics into the halls, according to Robert Dugdale, an attorney representing the county.

Dugdale also touted the department’s hiring of Robert Arcos, a former high-ranking member of the Los Angeles Police Department and L.A. County district attorney’s office, to oversee security in the facilities.

The motion claimed it was the Probation Department that first uncovered the evidence that led to the gladiator fight prosecutions. Bonta said in March that his office launched its investigation after it reviewed leaked footage of one of the incidents.

Los Angeles County launched an investigation Tuesday to determine whether a record $4-billion sex abuse settlement approved this year may be tainted.

County supervisors unanimously approved a motion to have county lawyers investigate possible misconduct by “legal representatives” involved in the recent flood of sex abuse litigation against L.A. County. The county auditor’s office also will set up a hotline dedicated to tips from the public related to the lawsuits, according to the motion.

“It is appalling and sickening that anyone would exploit a system meant to bring justice to victims of childhood sexual abuse,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who first called for the investigation. “We must ensure that nothing like this ever happens again and that every penny that we are allocating to victims goes directly to the survivors.”

Barger said she was “incredibly disturbed and quite frankly disgusted” by a Times investigation published last week that found seven plaintiffs in the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history who claimed they were paid by recruiters to sue the county. Two people said they were told to make up claims of abuse. The plaintiffs who spoke with The Times said the recruiters paid them outside a social services office in South Los Angeles.

All of the people who said they were paid by the recruiters were represented by Downtown L.A. Law Group, or DTLA, a personal injury firm with more than 2,700 plaintiffs in the settlement. DTLA has denied any involvement with the recruiters. The Times could not reach the recruiters for comment.

“We do not pay our clients to file lawsuits, and we strongly oppose such actions,” the firm previously said in a statement. “We want justice for real victims.”

The county agreed to a $4-billion settlement in the spring to resolve thousands of lawsuits by people who said they were sexually abused inside the county’s foster homes and juvenile halls as children. The lawsuits were spurred by a 2020 law that changed the statute of limitations and gave victims a new window to sue.

To pay for the settlement, most county departments had to slash their budgets. Supervisor Holly Mitchell called it a “painful irony” that many of the people who were paid to sue were there to get help from the South L.A. social services office in her district — part of a department which now faces cuts.

“We are not an ATM machine,” Supervisor Hilda Solis said. “We are the safety net.”

The Times found many of the attorneys involved in the case will receive 40% of their client’s settlement. Barger said she was shocked to learn that meant more than $1 billion in taxpayer money could go to law firms.

“I seriously doubt any of those attorneys understand the depth of what they have done,” Barger said. “It is going to have an impact on the county’s ability to function.”

The motion passed Tuesday directs county lawyers to enlist law enforcement “as necessary” and consider referring the allegations in The Times’ reporting to the State Bar.

California lawmakers, labor leaders and a powerful attorney trade group also have called for the bar to investigate.

The State Bar has declined to comment on whether it will launch an investigation, but said California law generally prohibits making payments to solicit or procure clients, a practice known as capping.

A majority of the supervisors expressed anger Tuesday at the 2020 change, saying the law was poorly crafted and left the county hemorrhaging billions. Many counties and school districts have similarly decried the change to the statute of limitations, which they say forced them to fight decades-old cases without records. Governments are required to throw out older records related to minors for privacy reasons, leaving lawyers often unable to prove whether a person suing them was at the facility where the abuse allegedly occurred.

The law change was championed by former lawmaker Lorena Gonzalez, now the president of the California Federation of Labor Unions. Barger repeatedly called the law, commonly referred to as AB 218, the “Gonzalez bill.”

“I’m calling it what it is,” said Barger, noting that school districts across the state now find themselves in similarly dire financial straits. “Maybe it is time for us all to get together and figure out how we clean up the mess that the Gonzalez bill put into play.”

Gonzalez says she believes plaintiffs attorneys have taken advantage of her legislation and is looking for someone in Sacramento to pass a new bill that will make it easier for jurisdictions to defend themselves. She emphasized that her priority was protecting real victims and said her bill didn’t change the burden of proof.

“What, are they just pissed because they can’t do due diligence?” she said. “They’re deflecting their whole responsibility in this. I’ve been clear there should be changes made. They should be clear that maybe they didn’t live up to their own burden of proof.”

Over the last week, some county unions and state legislators have questioned whether county lawyers did enough to screen the abuse claims before agreeing to pay out billions. The supervisors planned to meet with county lawyers in closed session Tuesday afternoon to discuss, in part, how the claims had been vetted.

“Did we do depositions? Did we do due diligence? “ Supervisor Janice Hahn said. “That was the first thing that came to my mind is what responsibility did we have to actually vet each and every one of the cases?”

The supervisors emphasized that they believed there were many legitimate claims in the settlement, and they wanted those victims to get compensated for the abuse they suffered at the hands of county employees.

Many victims have told The Times that they suffered egregious abuse decades ago at the hands of probation staff, who they said would molest them and threaten them with solitary confinement if they told higher-ups. MacLaren Children’s Center, a now-shuttered county-run shelter in El Monte, was also rife with predatory staff, according to interviews with half a dozen victims.

“It must truly reach those who are harmed,” Supervisor Lindsey Horvath said. “These funds must go to survivors — not individuals or entities who are looking to profit from someone else’s suffering.”

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.

NEW YORK — A new report on book bans in U.S. schools finds Stephen King as the author most likely to be censored and the country divided between states actively restricting works and those attempting to limit or eliminate bans.

PEN America’s “Banned in the USA,” released Wednesday, tracks more than 6,800 instances of books being temporarily or permanently pulled for the 2024-2025 school year. The new number is down from more than 10,000 in 2023-24, but still far above the levels of a few years ago, when PEN didn’t even see the need to compile a report.

Some 80% of those bans originated in three states that have enacted or attempted to enact laws calling for removal of books deemed objectionable — Florida, Texas and Tennessee. Meanwhile, PEN found little or no instances of removals in several other states, with Illinois, Maryland and New Jersey among those with laws that limit the authority of school and public libraries to pull books.

“It is increasingly a story of two countries,” says Kasey Meehan, director of PEN’s Freedom to Read program and an author of the report. “And it’s not just a story of red states and blue states. In Florida, not all of the school districts responded to the calls for banning books. You can find differences from county to county.”

King’s books were censored 206 times, according to PEN, with “Carrie” and “The Stand” among the 87 of his works affected. The most banned work of any author was Anthony Burgess’ dystopian classic from the 1960s, “A Clockwork Orange,” for which PEN found 23 removals. Other books and authors facing extensive restrictions included Patricia McCormick’s “Sold,” Judy Blume’s “Forever” and Jennifer Niven’s “Breathless,” and numerous works by Sarah J. Maas and Jodi Picoult.

Reasons often cited for pulling a book include LGBTQ+ themes, depictions of race and passages with violence and sexual violence. An ongoing trend that PEN finds has only intensified: Thousands of books were taken off shelves in anticipation of community, political or legal pressure rather than in response to a direct threat.

“This functions as a form of ‘obeying in advance,’” the report reads, “rooted in fear or simply a desire to avoid topics that might be deemed controversial.”

The PEN report comes amid ongoing censorship efforts not just from states and conservative activists but from the federal government. The Department of Education ended an initiative by the Biden administration to investigate the legality of bans and has called the issue a “hoax.” PEN’s numbers include the Department of Defense’s removal of hundreds of books from K-12 school libraries for military families as part of an overall campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and “un-American” thinking.

In Florida, where more than 2,000 books were banned or restricted, a handful of counties were responsible for many of the King removals: Dozens were pulled last year as a part of a review for whether they were in compliance with state laws.

“His books are often removed from shelves when ‘adult’ titles or books with ‘sex content’ are targeted for removal — these prohibitions overwhelmingly ban LGBTQ+ content and books on race, racism, and people of color — but also affect titles like Stephen King’s books,” Meehan says. “Some districts — in being overly cautious or fearful of punishment — will sweep so wide they end up removing Stephen King from access too.”

PEN’s methodology differs from that of the American Library Assn., which also issues annual reports on bans and challenges. PEN’s numbers are much higher in part because the free expression organization counts any books removed or restricted for any length of time, while the library association only counts permanent removals or restrictions.

Both organizations have acknowledged that because they largely rely on media reports and information that they receive directly, their numbers are far from comprehensive.

The PEN report does not include data from Ohio, Oklahoma, Arkansas and other red states because researchers could not find adequate documentation. Meehan said PEN also doesn’t know the full impact of statewide laws.

Italie writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Fla., contributed to this report.

Los Angeles County supervisors criticized the long-awaited $1.9-million outside investigation on government failures during the January wildfires as full of gaping holes after outcry from residents who say the report failed to answer their key question: Why did evacuation alerts come so late for so many?

“I’ve heard from many residents, some of whom are in the audience, who share that this report leads to more questions than answers, and, quite frankly, a lot of anger,” said Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents unincorporated Altadena, as the board discussed the report’s findings at its Tuesday meeting.

Nineteen people died in the Eaton fire, all but one of whom was found in west Altadena, an area that did not get evacuation alerts until hours after the fire threatened the area.

The report from McChrystal Group found, among other failures, that there was no clear guide of which county department was responsible for deciding which areas to evacuate. The responsibility for evacuations is split among the Office of Emergency Management, the Sheriff’s Department and the Fire Department, and none have taken responsibility for the evacuation blunders. The county also failed to consistently issue evacuation warnings to neighborhoods next to ones that were under an evacuation order, the report found.

The pushback by supervisors is notable because they commissioned the report in January and vowed it would get to the bottom of what went wrong. When it was unveiled last week, top county officials hailed it as a blueprint for improvements. But it almost immediately faced criticism from residents and others.

Despite the shortcomings, the supervisors said they were eager to implement the report’s recommendations, which included making it clear who was responsible for issuing evacuations and beefing up staffing for the Office of Emergency Management. The supervisors unanimously approved a motion Tuesday, to start the process of implementing some of the report’s recommendations.

One of the report’s problems, Barger said, is that so many noncounty agencies declined to participate in the report. Several California fire agencies including the Pasadena Fire Department, the state’s Office of Emergency Services and the Los Angeles Fire Department declined to provide information, according to the report.

“It is inexcusable and I would challenge any one of those departments, or any one of those chiefs, to look the survivors in the eye and explain why they were compelled not to cooperate, because that does lead to ‘What are you hiding?’” said Barger, who said she was “incredibly frustrated and disappointed.”

“We have very one-sided information,” acknowledged Erin Sutton, a partner with McChrystal Group. “It is the county information.”

Fire Chief Anthony Marrone said the consultants had been “unable to compel” other agencies to share their automatic vehicle locator data. The Times used county vehicle locator data earlier this year to reveal that most county fire trucks didn’t shift into west Altadena until long after it was ravaged by fire. The Times was not able to obtain vehicle locator data from any of the other fire agencies that were dispatched to the Eaton fire that night.

“We were out of L.A. County Fire trucks. We were relying on our mutual aid partners that were there,” Marrone said. “We just don’t have their data.”

The Sheriff’s Department has also yet to release vehicle locator data on where deputies were that evening. Sheriff Robert Luna said Tuesday that the department had dozens of deputies assisting with evacuations that night.

“We can absolutely do better, and we’re already putting systems in place so that we can do better,” Luna told the supervisors Tuesday. “They weren’t waiting for warnings.”

A spokesperson for the Pasadena Fire Department said the agency didn’t participate beyond providing written information because the “scope of the review was the response by Los Angeles County.” The L.A. Fire Department said it didn’t participate because it was outside the agency’s jurisdiction. The state’s Office of Emergency Services noted it was already conducting its own review.

“I too am frustrated by what I feel are areas of incompleteness,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, whose district was scarred by the Palisades fire.

The 133-page report makes only one mention of deaths from the fire. Horvath said she felt the report failed to include the “very painful” accounts from survivors and should have delved into the issue of rogue alerts that urged many to get ready to evacuate even though they were miles away from fire.

Supervisor Holly Mitchell said she wanted to highlight the racial disparity of outcomes in Altadena, an issue she called the “elephant in the room” and one that was not mentioned in the report. Black residents of Altadena were more likely to have their homes damaged or destroyed by the Eaton fire, according to research by UCLA.

Residents feel deeply that their experience — receiving later alerts and fewer fire resources than their neighbors — is not reflected in the report, she said. “We have to figure out how to acknowledge that disconnect, not diminish it,” she said

Congresswoman Judy Chu, whose district includes Altadena, said in a letter to the board that the report left “unresolved questions” around evacuation failures.

“The report does not explain why officials concluded it was safe to wait until 3:25 a.m. to issue the order, or who was responsible for that decision,” she wrote.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors reviewed the McChrystal report on the January fires at a meeting Tuesday.

(Terry Castleman / Los Angeles Times)

Standing on a vacant lot in west Altadena, hundreds of residents said they were frustrated with the report.

“Officials have responded with unconscionable ineptitude,” said Kara Vallow, who said she believed the document “goes out of its way to avoid accountability.”

Speakers called for Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate separately, questioning the independence of the report. Survivors held signs with victims’ names, while others questioned why alerts came so late for west Altadena.

Lauren Randolph, a west Altadena resident, asked why, if flames were near her home in Farnsworth Park at 2:20 a.m., her family nearby didn’t receive an evacuation alert until almost 3:25 a.m.

“I ask again — who was in charge?” she said.

She said she felt the report failed to look into west Altadena, where she alleged that 911 calls were ignored and evacuation notices came late, noting that the area was home to most of Altadena’s Black and brown families.

The report emphasized that the “fire front” had not crossed into west Altadena, where nearly all the deaths took place, until around 5 a.m., nearly two hours after the evacuation orders came for the area. But many west Altadenans decried the description, saying their homes started to burn long before then.

“That is not true,” Sylvie Andrews said, the crowd around her laughing at the assertion.

Shawn Tyrie, a partner with McChrystal Group, acknowledged Tuesday that the satellite images they used don’t provide a “definitive picture,” particularly in cases with extreme wind, ember cast and smoke.

“Those images are severely degraded in smoke conditions like that,” he said, leaving open the possibility that the fire was in west Altadena well before 5 a.m., as residents previously reported to The Times.

Altadena residents voice their displeasure with the McChrystal report shortly before the Board of Supervisors met to review the report.

(Terry Castleman / Los Angeles Times)

Many of the residents’ questions were echoed Tuesday at the Hall of Administration by Barger, who drilled down on the difference between the fire front, which didn’t cross into west Altadena until 5 a.m, and the ember cast, which started dangerous spot fires in the neighborhood long before then.

“For people I’ve talked to who lost their homes, fire front versus ember cast mean nothing other than there was fire in their community, in their neighborhood, burning down homes,” she said.

Marrone said he believed they should have taken the ember cast into account.

“With hindsight being 2020, we do understand now that we must evacuate well ahead of not only the fire front … but we also need to take into account the massive ember cast,” he said.

Marrone said repeatedly that his firefighters were overwhelmed responding to multiple fires that day. Firefighters battled the Eaton fire as hurricane-force winds scattered embers for two miles. Unlike the Palisades fire, the most difficult stretch of the Eaton fire was fought in the dark with winds requiring all aircraft grounded by 6:45 p.m as the fire was just beginning. This left first responders without an aerial view of the flames, reducing their awareness of the fire direction.

Marrone said they’ve made a National Guard satellite program available to incident command, so fire officials can see the path of a fire on nights when they have no aerial support.

“Like I said before, and this is not an excuse, this was a massive, unprecedented disaster that presented severe challenges,” he said.

Barger also questioned why there was such a delay between when fire officials first noticed the fire was moving west and when the evacuation orders were issued. According to the report, a county fire official in the field in Altadena said they suggested to incident command staff a little before midnight that, due to high winds, evacuation orders should go out for the foothills of Altadena, all the way west to La Cañada Flintridge. About two hours later, at 2:18 a.m., a fire official radioed that they saw fire north of Farnsworth Park moving west along the foothills.

The first evacuation order for west Altadena came at 3:25 a.m.

Marrone said incident command needed to validate the report before requesting the order be sent out.

“That took time — probably too much time in retrospect,” Marrone said.

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.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, claiming the department violated county gunowners’ 2nd Amendment rights by delaying thousands of concealed carry permit application decisions for “unreasonable” periods of time.

In a statement, the DOJ claimed that the Sheriff’s Department “systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home — not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

The complaint, filed in the Central District of California, the federal court in Los Angeles, cites data provided by the Sheriff’s Department about the more than 8,000 concealed carry permit applications and renewal applications it received between Jan. 2, 2024, and March 31.

During that period, the DOJ wrote, it took an average of nearly 300 days for the Sheriff’s Department to schedule interviews to approve the applications or “otherwise” advance them.

As a result, of the nearly 4,000 applications for new concealed carry licenses it received during those 15 months, “LASD issued only two licenses.” Two others were denied, the DOJ said, while the rest remained pending or were withdrawn.

The Sheriff’s Department did not immediately provide comment Monday. In March, when the Trump administration announced its 2nd Amendment investigation, the department said it was “committed to processing all Concealed Carry Weapons [CCW] applications in compliance with state and local laws.”

The department’s statement said it had approved 15,000 applications for concealed carry licenses but that because of “a significant staffing crisis in our CCW Unit” it was “diligenty working through approximately 4,000 active cases.”

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said Monday that the DOJ was working to safeguard the 2nd Amendment, which “protects the fundamental constitutional right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.”

“Los Angeles County may not like that right, but the Constitution does not allow them to infringe upon it,” Bondi said. “This Department of Justice will continue to fight for the Second Amendment.”

The federal agency’s complaint alleged that the practice of delaying the applications effectively forced gun permit applicants “to abandon their constitutional rights through administrative exhaustion.”

In December 2023, the California Rifle and Pistol Assn. sued the Sheriff’s Department over what it alleged were improper delays and rejections of applications for concealed carry licenses. In January, U.S. District Court Judge Sherilyn P. Garnett ordered the department to reduce delays.

In the new complaint, the DOJ called on the court to issue a permanent injunction.

Gun rights groups heralded the move by the Trump administration.

“This is a landmark lawsuit in that it’s the first time the Department of Justice has ever filed a case in support of gun owners,” Adam Kraut, executive director of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in a statement. “We are thrilled to see the federal government step up and defend the Second Amendment rights of citizens and hope this pattern continues around the country.”

Ever since Elijah Maldonado was born at just 29 months, he has needed specialty treatments that his family could afford only with publicly funded healthcare.

Diagnosed with cerebral palsy as an infant, he spent his first three months at a public hospital where the family lives in Orange County.

Now 7, Elijah receives physical and speech therapy among a host of other services paid for through Medicaid. He relies on a wheelchair funded by the government. An assistant paid for with taxpayer dollars makes sure he’s safe on the bus ride to and from school.

Each month, he receives a $957 disability check that helps to cover his and his family’s living expenses.

Josephine Rios wipes her grandson Elijah’s face.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Still learning to speak on his own, he uses a Proloquo speech app on an iPad provided by his school to tell his family when he’s hungry, needs to use the restroom or wants to play with his favorite toys.

“It’s his voice — his lifeline,” his aunt and primary caretaker Cassandra Gonzalez says of the app. Her compensation for his in-home care comes from taxpayer dollars too.

Now that lifeline — and much of the government assistance Elijah receives — is at risk of going away.

With hundreds of billions of dollars worth of cuts to Medicaid and food aid kicking in this fall thanks to the passage of the Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” — on top of earlier cuts imposed by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency — a host of federally funded healthcare and nutrition programs that serve low-income Americans will be scaled back, revamped with expanded work requirements and other restrictions or canceled altogether if individual states can’t find alternate funding sources.

The budget reduces federal spending on Medicaid alone by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years nationwide, with initial reductions taking effect in the coming weeks.

Gov. Gavin Newsom responded by accusing the Trump administration of “ripping care from cancer patients, meals from children and money from working families — just to give tax breaks to the ultra-rich.”

L.A. public health officials called the cuts devastating for a county where nearly 40% of the population is enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. L.A. County’s Department of Health Services, which oversees four public hospitals and about two dozen clinics, projects a budget reduction amounting to $750 million a year, and federal funding for the Department of Public Health, which inspects food, provides substance-use treatment and tracks disease outbreaks, will drop by an estimated $200 million a year. Spending cuts have prompted hiring freezes and projections of ballooning budget deficits, county health officials said.

Spending reductions, combined with recent changes to the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, could leave an additional 1.7 million people in California uninsured by 2034, according to an analysis by the nonprofit healthcare research organization KFF.

Cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), colloquially known as “food stamps,” will exceed $280 billion over the next decade, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office.

It’s not just that the cuts to these programs are massive by historical standards.

The new rules and restrictions are confusing and states have been given little guidance from the federal agencies that oversee health and nutrition programs on how, or even when, to implement them, experts at the Center on Budget Policy and Priorities wrote in a recent report.

What’s clear, the CBPP said, is that millions of children, older adults, people with disabilities and veterans stand to lose not just Medicaid coverage but federal aid to access the type of healthy foods that could prevent illness and chronic conditions.

More than 5 million California households receive food aid through the state’s CalFresh program and 97% percent of them will see their benefits either slashed or eliminated because of federal spending cuts, changes to eligibility requirements or financial constraints at the state level, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan California Budget Policy Center.

Elijah plays with toy cars outside his aunt’s home in Tustin.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

In Orange County, where Elijah’s family lives, public health officials were already reeling from federal spending cuts in the months before the budget bill passed, said Dr. Veronica Kelley, director of the OC Health Care Agency. For example, there was the $13.2-million cut to funding for family planning services in the county, and the $4-million reduction in funding to Women, Infants and Children nutrition (WIC).

The agency has worked to prevent mass layoffs by moving public-health workers in canceled programs to other departments or leaving some positions unfilled in order to save jobs elsewhere, and it has sought out nonprofit social service organizations and philanthropies to either take over programs or help fund them, Kelley said.

Now, Kelley is preparing for possible cuts to programs to combat obesity, maintain community gardens, help seniors make better healthcare decisions and reduce the use of tobacco. The agency also has to figure out how to make up for a $4.8-million reduction in federal funds for the county’s SNAP program that takes effect on Wednesday — another casualty of the federal spending bill.

The measures that the agency has leaned on to get through the year are not sustainable, Kelley said. “We can only do that for so long,” she said. “It’s chaotic. In terms of healthcare, it’s devastating… It feels like we’re taking so many steps backward.”

The looming cuts and changes have also set off alarm bells at Kaiser Permanente, California’s largest private healthcare provider with 9.5 million members statewide, 1.1 million of whom are enrolled in Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

“Without the ability to pay, newly uninsured people will find themselves having to delay care, leading to more serious and complex health conditions, increasing the use of emergency services and more intensive medical services,” Kaiser Permanente Southern California Regional spokeswoman Candice Lee said in a statement to The Times.

“This will affect all of us as the cost of this uncompensated care leads hospitals and care providers to charge paying customers more to cover their costs. Some hospitals and providers, especially those in rural and underserved areas, will be unable to make up for these unreimbursed costs, and will be financially threatened by these changes.”

Standing in front of her sister Cassandra’s town home in Tustin, a quiet suburban city of 80,000 about 10 miles south of Disneyland, Elijah’s mother, Samantha Rios; grandmother Josephine Rios; and Aunt Cassandra are filled with worry.

Elijah points to a command on his Proloquo speech app, which he uses to communicate his needs.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Josephine, a nursing assistant who works at a Kaiser hospital in Orange County, said she hears the panic in patients’ voices when they describe rushing to schedule needed medical procedures in anticipation of losing their Medicaid benefits.

Earlier this year, Josephine joined delegations of unionized California healthcare workers who traveled to Washington with the aim of pressing lawmakers to oppose spending cuts.

Rep. Young Kim, the Republican who represents the Rios family’s district in Congress, was receptive to the delegation’s pleas to vote no on the budget bill, Josephine recalls. The congresswoman ultimately voted for the bill, saying on her official webpage the legislation was good for Californians because it would relieve the tax burden on families, ensure that government dollars are used effectively and “strengthen Medicaid and SNAP for our most vulnerable citizens who truly need it.”

Elijah’s Aunt Cassandra and grandmother Josephine look over his shoulder as he watches a TV show.

(Juliana Yamada / Los Angeles Times)

Now, Josephine looked on as Elijah, seated in his wheelchair, played on his iPad and watched a Disney program on his phone. He can press a tab on the touchscreen to make the tablet say “My name’s Elijah” if he’s feeling unsafe away from home, another to tell his family he needs space when upset.

Watching Elijah enjoy himself, the women said they feel awkward broadcasting their woes to strangers when all they desire is what’s best for him. They don’t need the public’s pity.

The family wants lawmakers and the public to understand how seemingly abstract healthcare decisions involving billions of dollars, and made 2,000-plus miles away in Washington, have brought new financial turmoil to a family that’s already on the edge financially.

Samantha, a single mom, works full time to provide a home for Elijah and his two sisters, ages 10 and 8. A subscription to the Proloquo speech app alone would cost $300 a year out-of-pocket — more than she can afford on her shoestring budget.

Due to changes in household income requirements, Samantha had already lost Medicaid coverage for herself and her two girls, she said, as well as her SNAP food assistance, leaving her at a loss for how to fill the gap. She now pays about $760 a month to cover her daughters and herself through her employer-based health plan.

The cut to food aid has forced her to compensate by getting free vegetables, milk, eggs and chicken from the food pantry at a local school, a reality that she said she was at first too ashamed to disclose even to relatives.

Then came the bad news Samantha recently received about Elijah’s monthly Social Security Insurance for his disability. She was stunned to hear that because of stricter income cut-offs for that type of aid, Elijah would no longer receive those checks as of Oct. 1.

“Before, he was getting $957 a month — obviously that’s grocery money for me,” Samantha said. The money also went to buy baby wipes, as well as knee pads to help him move more comfortably on the floor when not using his wheelchair.

“I don’t get food stamps. I don’t get Medi-Cal for my girls. I don’t get any of that,” Samantha said. “As of Oct. 1, now I’ve got to figure out how am I going to pay my rent? How am I going to buy groceries?”

Luckily, the sisters said, the physical, speech and behavioral-health therapies that Elijah receives are safe — for now.

And the women know they can lean on each other in tough times. The sisters and Josephine all live within minutes of each other in Tustin, close enough for Samantha’s children to eat at someone’s home when their own cupboards are bare.

Every few months, Samantha said, Elijah experiences severe seizures that can last up to 90 minutes and require hospitalization.

Cassandra and Josephine like that they can run over to help if Elijah has a medical emergency. Another sister who lives farther away is on hand when needed too.

“What’s going to happen to other families who don’t have that support system?” Samantha said.

Given the potential for further cuts to programs that pay for home-based healthcare and assistants for people with disabilities, Cassandra wonders what will happen to her own family if she can no longer work as Elijah’s caregiver.

Where would the family get the money to pay a new caregiver who is qualified enough to work with a special-needs child who can speak a few words thanks to speech therapy but who cannot eat, walk or use the restroom without supervision? What if funding is eliminated for the assistant who travels with Elijah to school?

“People think that cutting Medi-Cal, cutting food stamps or whatever isn’t going to affect that many people,” Cassandra said. “It’s affecting my nephew and nieces. It’s affecting my sister. But it’s not just affecting her household. It’s affecting my household.”

“We’re not saying we’re going to Disneyland or going out to eat every day,” Cassandra said. “This is just living. We can’t even live at this point, with things being cut.”

The women offered up principles they feel are in short supply lately in the discourse over the government’s role in public health — among them “morals” and “empathy.” Samantha adds one more word to the list.

“Humanity,” she says. “We lack it.”

SAIF ZAIB – (NORTHAMPTONSHIRE) – 61%

1,387 runs, average 66.04, six centuries, six half-centuries

Saif Zaib has been a beacon of light in a season of struggle for Northamptonshire.

Batting at number five, he has often been called upon to rescue a brittle batting line-up from which no other batter features in Division Two’s top twenty run-scorers.

He converted six of his 12 50-plus scores into three figures while also chipping in with 13 wickets with his slow left-armers.

The good news for Northants fans is he remains under contract until the end of the 2027 season.

TOM ABELL (SOMERSET) – 52%

1,022 runs, average 51.10, three centuries, five half-centuries

Though his side’s push for a maiden Division One title faltered in the final month of the season, 2025 was another fine year for Tom Abell.

A century in the penultimate round was his third of the campaign and saw him into four figures for the season with an average of more than 50.

The 31-year-old also helped his club to the T20 Blast title.

MARCUS HARRIS (LANCASHIRE) – 46%

1,027 runs, average 60.41, three centuries, five half-centuries

Former Australia Test batter Marcus Harris has had a year to remember after joining Lancashire.

The 33-year-old initially signed as an overseas for the Championship and One-Day Cup this summer but swiftly put pen to paper on a deal for another two years.

The former Leicestershire and Gloucestershire man – who has won 14 Test caps – made a blistering start, passing 800 runs in May, though his momentum did wane in the second half of the season as Lancashire were unable to mount a push for promotion from Division Two.

Having been part of the 2024 team, Glamorgan’s Colin Ingram was edged into fourth in the voting by Harris.

The race for Los Angeles County sheriff is already heating up — even with the primary not scheduled until next June. Six candidates have officially entered the field to unseat Robert Luna, with the early challengers slinging barbs, probing the incumbent’s political weaknesses and setting the stage for a heated campaign in the coming months.

Most vocal and well-known among the contenders is former Sheriff Alex Villanueva, who lost to Luna in 2022 and is now vying for a rematch. He is among a field of current and former lawmen who have criticized Luna’s time in office as ineffective, uninspiring and opaque.

Luna told The Times he deserves to keep his job through 2030, arguing voters should choose stability as Southern California prepares to host major events in the coming years.

“The last thing we need is more inconsistency in leadership as we start working toward the World Cup and the Olympics,” Luna said.

Villanueva registered a campaign committee in July and has since leveraged his ability to draw attention like few others in L.A. politics.

But the political dynamics have changed since 2022, when Joe Biden was president and Villanueva was still in charge of California’s largest law enforcement agency. Now, President Trump has ratcheted up political pressure on L.A., and last year, Janice Hahn defeated Villanueva in the primary for her county supervisor seat by a nearly 30-point margin.

Through it all, Sara Sadhwani, an assistant professor of politics at Pomona College, said it seems as though “Luna is generally liked, perhaps because he has brought a steady hand to the department” after what she termed “upheaval” under Villanueva.

The former sheriff has been heavily criticized for his combative personal style, pursuit of political vendettas and his handling of investigations into so-called deputy gangs deputies and other alleged misconduct.

“Does Villanueva have a lane to come back? I don’t think so,” said Sadhwani.

Luna launched jabs at his opponents, with the sharpest reserved for his predecessor.

“Not one of those individuals that is running comes close to the experience that I have and the accomplishments that I’ve had so far,” Luna said. “There were a lot of controversies and scandals with the previous sheriff that, again, eroded public trust.”

And yet, there’s no conversation about the sheriff’s race that won’t mention Villanueva, whose name recognition runs deep across L.A. County.

Villanueva told The Times he’s “eager to get back in the saddle,” especially now, when “there are prosecutors ready to prosecute,” a nod to the tough-on-crime stances of Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli and L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman.

Former Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva talks with reporters at an election night gathering in Boyle Heights on June 7, 2022, when he was defeated by Robert Luna.

(Luis Sinco/Los Angeles Times)

Villanueva had strong words for his 2022 opponent.

“The status quo is failing miserably the people of L.A. County,” he said. “I just can’t believe what Luna’s done to the organization I’ve spent my entire adult life in.”

Others jockeying for contention are pitching themselves as offering a breath of fresh air.

Lt. Eric Strong, who has served over 30 years in law enforcement and was seen as the most progressive of the 2022 candidates, is throwing his hat back in the ring after coming in third in that year.

“What really got me interested in running is seeing the continued failed leadership within the department,” Strong said in a recent interview. “Nothing’s changed. … Honestly Luna’s just a quieter version of Alex Villanueva.”

Then there’s Oscar Martinez, a proud immigrant and U.S. Marine Corps. veteran who made a career at the sheriff’s department after multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Andre White, 34, is the youngest candidate. A Compton-raised detective with 11 years at the department, he promises to take a “community-oriented approach” if he’s elected sheriff.

Brendan Corbett served as the assistant sheriff for custody operations under Villanueva.

Lastly, there’s Capt. Mike Bornman, who has decades of experience in the department and lists a “comprehensive forensic audit” of its books as the top priority on his campaign website.

In a recent phone interview, Bornman said he considered Luna a “vulnerable” incumbent.

The sheriff has faced criticism from opponents and advocates who say he has done too little to improve jail conditions, leading to a surge in inmate deaths this year. Like Villanueva, he has also faced pressure to do more to root out deputy gangs and boost recruitment.

“The morale is as bad as I’ve ever seen it,” Bornman said. “Something has to change,” he added. “I don’t think the department can take another four more years with the guy.”

Political analysts cautioned that the race is sill wide open, with one expert declining to speculate during the “embryonic” stages as the field takes shape.

Anything can happen in the eight months remaining before the primary, but Sadhwani said one thing is clear: Unseating the current sheriff won’t be easy.

“I will say in general that an incumbent such as Luna typically has the upper hand and challengers need not only cause but the campaign fundraising ability to get their message out — no small feat in a county as large as L.A.”

So far, fundraising has been mostly anemic, at least according to the county’s most recent comprehensive campaign finance data available for the sheriff’s race, which covers only Jan. 1 through June 30.

Over those six months, Luna raised about $393,000; Bornman brought in nearly $23,000 of contributions; Martinez brought in about $6,700; and White raised less than $3,000. The other three candidates had not even declared their candidacies by June 30.