County

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

At a luncheon this week for L.A. County politicos, Supervisor Kathryn Barger pitched what she framed as a commonsense reform.

Legislators in Sacramento, she argued, need to change a 2019 law that extended the statute of limitations for sex abuse lawsuits, opening the floodgates for decades-old claims that have cost the county nearly $5 billion and counting in payouts.

“I want them in Sacramento to fix it,” she said. “I have to believe that we are the tip of the iceberg.”

The controversial law, Assembly Bill 218, has led to thousands of claims over abuse that took place in schools, juvenile halls and foster homes. Supporters say it continues to give survivors a chance at justice, while Barger and other officials warn the cost of the litigation is driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy.

Rolling back AB 218, critics argue, is the single most obvious thing state lawmakers can do this legislative session.

The push has gained momentum amid concerns of fraud in the first of two payouts approved last year by L.A. County officials. At $4 billion, it was the largest sex abuse settlement in U.S. history, with the money set aside for more than 11,000 victims.

The Times reported last fall on allegations of fabricated claims filed by plaintiffs within the settlement, which prompted L.A. County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman to open an investigation. Hochman told the supervisors this week that his office is reviewing “thousands of claims” for fraudulent submissions and predicted savings in the “hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars.”

Speaking at the event Wednesday, Barger suggested capping attorneys fees — acknowledging that some high-powered attorneys in the room were involved in the county’s litigation.

Out of the $4-billion payout, she said, “about $1.5 billion will go to attorney fees — present company included.”

Barger referenced a former state Assembly speaker known for bare-knuckle tactics, which she said were needed now in the Capitol.

“If Willie Brown were up there, I’m sure he’d lock everyone in a room and slap some sense into them at this point,” she said.

Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has asked California legislators to consider changes to AB 218. Critics say sexual abuse lawsuits are driving local governments to the brink of bankruptcy, while supporters say it is one of the few ways for victims of abuse to get justice. Rivas spoke in Ventura County on Nov. 18, 2025.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

This session, Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas has assigned a group of legislators to look at what changes might be made to the law.

A spokesman for Rivas, Nick Miller, said the goal is to provide “meaningful access to justice for all survivors” without forcing service cuts in schools and governments.

“There is a group of members discussing possible solutions that strike the right balance on this critical issue,” Miller said.

It’s a tightrope walk that no legislator has mastered.

Sen. Benjamin Allen (D-Santa Monica), who tried last year to increase the burden of proof for these cases, was branded a protector of predators.

Sen. John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) got further with a pared-down bill only to watch it blow up last session over concerns he was trampling on victims’ rights.

“I worked hard to strike the middle ground,” Laird said. “It just was too hard.”

Organized labor, a powerful voice in Sacramento, could sway the equation. County unions said they were told repeatedly at the bargaining table last year that they couldn’t get raises because of the massive sex abuse settlements, potentially setting them on a collision course with victim advocates.

Lorena Gonzalez, who wrote AB 218 in 2019 before leaving the Legislature to head up the California Federation of Labor Unions, said lobbying firms had been urging unions recently to take the lead on convincing the Assembly to change the law. The union leaders have yet to take a stance, she said.

“Although there’s some desire to especially fix what happened in L.A., there wasn’t an overwhelming desire to roll it back,” she said.

While serving in the state Legislature, Lorena Gonzalez authored AB 218, a state law that extended the statute of limitations for lawsuits over sexual abuse in government facilities. Gonzalez, now with the California Labor Federation, spoke at Balletto Vineyards in Santa Rosa, Calif., on April 26, 2024.

(Jeff Chiu / Associated Press)

A Times investigation last fall found nine clients of Downtown L.A. Law Group, a law firm that represents thousands of plaintiffs in the county’s largest settlement, who claimed that recruiters had paid them to sue. Some clients said they were told to make up stories of abuse that became the crux of their lawsuit.

The firm, also known as DTLA, has denied paying any client to sue. Andrew Morrow, the main attorney on the cases for DTLA, argued in a Feb. 13 court filing that the recent subpoena by the State Bar seeking their court records as part of an investigation into the firm amounted to an “ill-advised fishing expedition.” The firm argued that allowing the State Bar to review its filings violates clients’ privacy.

“No one disputes that these allegations are troubling and, if true, serious,” Morrow wrote. “However, untested allegations printed in a local newspaper — no matter how compelling — do not override the privacy rights” of victims.

Assemblymember Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), a longtime advocate for sex abuse survivors who vehemently opposed the last attempt at changing AB 218, said that “there’s all kinds of discussions about potential solutions” for fraud underway in the Legislature.

But limiting victims’ ability to sue, as some have called on lawmakers to do, is a clear no-go, she said.

“Silencing victims is not the way to get out fraud,” she said.

Like many legislators, she pinned some of the blame for the alleged fraud on poor vetting by lawyers for L.A. County. The county has said the cost of taking depositions for more than 11,000 cases would be “astronomical,” and that no records exist for many of the older cases, leaving them defenseless.

In a statement to The Times, a spokesperson for the L.A. County counsel’s office said the Legislature created AB 218 “without a single safeguard against fraud.”

“That is their failure to own,” the statement said. “This is the system the Legislature built, and they need to fix it.”

The county maintains it is not trying to squash victims’ rights, but rather keep vital services — pools, parks, health clinics — open.

“I am tired of whenever a government official stands up and says, ‘Hey, there needs to be some reform here,’ that we’re accused of victim blaming, pedophile protecting,” says Joseph Nicchitta, the county’s acting chief executive.

After agreeing to the $4-billion payout in April, county officials opted into a second $828-million settlement in October covering an additional 400 cases. Since then, more than 5,000 cases have been filed that are not part of either settlement and still need to be resolved.

“Let me tell you what will not work for L.A. County,” Nicchitta said. “The nibbles around the edges — ‘Make the procedure a little tighter, we’ll require a couple more documents.’”

He said he believes the Legislature needs to weigh the need to pay survivors against the obligation to keep the social safety net intact. One solution, Nicchitta said, could involve a victims compensation fund that would eliminate the need for someone to hire an attorney in order to submit a claim and receive money.

“Acknowledge the harm, provide real competition, [and] do it fast,” he said. “You don’t need a lawyer.”

John Manly, a lawyer who has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years, sits at his law office in Irvine on Dec. 29, 2023.

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

After getting flooded with sex abuse claims related to juvenile facilities following a similar change in the statute of limitations, Maryland capped sex abuse cases against government entities last year at $400,000 and limited attorneys’ fees to 25% for cases resolved in court.

For many California trial attorneys, ideas such as these are nonstarters.

“The reason they’re proposing a victims’ fund is they continue to know that those people don’t have any political power,” said John Manly, a veteran sex abuse attorney who is part of the second L.A. County settlement. “The only power they have is to hire a lawyer and get justice.

“We’re going to fight,” he said.

The Los Angeles County District Attorney is investigating whether Southern California Edison should be criminally prosecuted for its actions in last year’s devastating Eaton wildfire, which killed 19 people and left thousands of families homeless, the company said Wednesday.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, told Wall Street analysts during an afternoon conference call that the company was cooperating with the District Attorney’s office. He said he didn’t know the magnitude of the investigation.

The company said in its annual 10-K report, which was released Wednesday, that it “could be subject to material fines, penalties, or restitution” if the investigation “determined that it failed to comply with applicable laws and regulations.”

“SCE is not aware of any basis for felony liability with regards to the Eaton Fire,” the report said. “Any fines and penalties incurred in connection with the Eaton Fire will not be recoverable from insurance, from the Wildfire Fund, or through electric rates.”

The District Attorney’s office declined to comment.

The investigation into the fire, which destroyed a wide swath of Altadena, has not yet been released. Pizarro has said that a leading theory of the fire’s cause is that a century-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon, which had not carried power for 50 years, somehow re-energized and sparked the fire.

Edison executives have said they didn’t remove the line because they believed it would be used in the future.

Company executives knew idle transmission lines could spark wildfires. In 2019, investigators traced the Kincade fire in Sonoma County, which destroyed 374 homes and other structures, to a transmission line owned by Pacific Gas & Electric that was no longer in service.

The Times reported in December how Edison fell behind in maintenance of its transmission system before the fire.

Despite the dangerous Santa Ana wind conditions on Jan. 7, 2025, Edison decided not to shut down the transmission lines running through Eaton Canyon. Pizarro has said the winds that night didn’t meet the company’s threshold at the time for turning off the lines.

Pizarro told investors on the call Wednesday that he continued to believe that the company had acted as a “reasonable utility operator” before the deadly fire.

Under state law, if a utility is determined to have acted reasonably it can be reimbursed for all or most of the damages of the fire by a state wildfire fund.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Officials for Fulton County, Ga., said in a filing Tuesday that the Department of Justice lied to get a warrant to raid and seize 2020 election materials from the county’s elections office.

The officials say President Donald Trump‘s former campaign attorney, Kurt Olsen, orchestrated the search and seizure by the FBI that happened on Jan. 18 at the Fulton County Elections Hub and Operation Center.

“The affidavit admits that the entire ‘criminal investigation originated from a referral sent by Kurt Olsen,’ but it conceals the fact that multiple courts have sanctioned Olsen for his unsubstantiated, speculative claims about elections,” the officials said in an amended motion filed Tuesday.

County officials want the Justice Department to return seized election ballots, voter rolls, digital ballot images and tabulator tapes that are related to the county’s certification of the 2020 presidential election.

“Instead of alleging probable cause to believe a crime has been committed,” the county officials say the Justice Department’s application “does nothing more than describe the types of human errors that its own sources confirm occur in almost every election — with no wrongdoing whatsoever.”

The FBI did not tell the magistrate judge who approved the search warrant that the claims made against Fulton County election officials already had been investigated and debunked, county officials said in their newest filing.

The federal lawsuit was filed on Sunday in the U.S. District Court of Northern Georgia by the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Georgia Coalition for the People’s Agenda, the NAACP and Atlanta and Georgia State Conference branches of the NAACP.

They want to stop the Trump administration from using the voter records to purge voters, improperly disclose information or intimidate or dox voters.

It’s one thing most everyone agrees on: federal funding cuts have left the Los Angeles County health system teetering toward financial collapse.

But the supervisors’ chosen antidote — a half-cent sales tax to replenish county coffers — is being condemned by a slew of cities as its own form of financial catastrophe.

“I heard from every city in my district,” said Kathryn Barger, the only supervisor who voted against putting the sales tax on the June ballot.

The resounding reaction? “Absolutely not,” she says.

“People are fatigued,” Barger said. “I’m not convinced that it’s going to pass.”

Observers wouldn’t have sensed that fatigue from the rowdy crowd of supporters that filled the board meeting Tuesday, along with seldom-used overflow rooms. The supervisors voted 4-1 at the meeting to put the tax on the ballot.

“There really are no other viable and timely options,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who introduced the measure along with Supervisor Hilda Solis. “Trust me, I looked high and low.”

The goal, supervisors say, is to generate $1 billion per year to backfill the dwindling budgets of local hospitals and clinics battered by federal funding cuts.

The county’s already bracing for impact. The Department of Public Health announced Friday it would shutter seven clinics. Officials say it’s just the beginning, with the county poised to lose more than $2 billion in funding for health services over the next three years. Hospitals could be down the road, they warn.

But many cities, some of which could have local sales tax hit more than 11%, are revolting on the plan.

“I have been getting calls and texts and letters like honestly I have not gotten in a long time,” Supervisor Janice Hahn told the audience as a message from Jeff Wood — the vice mayor of Lakewood — pinged on her phone. “They are really diving in on this one.”

In a series of opposition letters, the cities unleashed a torrent of criticism. Norwalk called the tax “rushed.” Palmdale said it had “significant flaws.” Glendale found it “deeply troubling and fundamentally unfair.”

Some bristled at the cost to consumers. Palmdale and Lancaster — some of the poorest cities in the county — could wind up with some of the highest sales tax rates in the state if the measure passes.

Some cities say the bigger issue is they don’t trust the county. They point to its checkered history of pushing ballot measures that don’t live up to their promises.

Measure B, a special parcel tax, was passed in 2002 to fund the county’s trauma center network. An audit more than a decade later found the county couldn’t prove it used the money for emergency medical services.

Measure H, the homelessness services tax measure, was passed in 2017 as a temporary tax. Voters agreed in 2024 to make the tax permanent and to double the rate — though some cities insist they’ve never gotten their fair share of the funds.

“It’s a historical issue,” said Glendora mayor David Fredendall, whose city opposes the sales tax. “We don’t trust it.”

The county decided to put the sales tax on the ballot as a general tax, meaning the money goes into the general fund. Legally, supervisors could use the money for whatever services they desire.

“They say ‘No, this is our plan’, but we’re going to expand from five to nine supervisors over the next few years before this tax expires,” said Marcel Rodarte, the head of the California Contract Cities Assn., a coalition of cities inside the county. “They may say we need to use these funds for something else.”

A general tax also is easier to pass, since it needs only a majority vote. Special taxes — levies earmarked for a specific purpose — need two-thirds of the vote.

The measure also asks voters to approve the creation of an oversight group that would monitor where the money goes. The supervisors also voted on a spending plan for the tax money, which would dedicate the largest portion of funds for uninsured residents over the next five years.

Some opponents predict the tax will stick around longer than advertised.

“A temporary tax is like Bigfoot,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., a group that advocates for lower taxes. “It exists in fantasy.”

State of play

— FRIENDLY FIRE: Three hours before the filing deadline, L.A. City Councilmember Nithya Raman jumped into the race for mayor, challenging her former ally Karen Bass. Her candidacy will be Bass’ most serious threat.

— DEFUND DETOUR: Shortly after, Raman staked out her position on cops, saying she doesn’t want the LAPD to lose more police. Raman called for department downsizing when she first ran for city council in 2020.

— LOYAL LABOR: The head of the AFL-CIO, the county’s powerful labor federation, blasted Raman as an “opportunist.” Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said her organization will “use every tool” at its disposal to get Bass reelected.

— PETITION PUSH: Scores of candidates for L.A. city offices picked up their petitions Feb. 7, launching their effort to collect the signatures they need to qualify for the ballot. The first to turn in a petition was Councilmember Traci Park, who is facing two challengers while running for reelection in a coastal district.

— EYES ON ICE: Los Angeles police officers must turn on their body cameras if they’re at the scene of federal immigration enforcement operations, according to a new executive directive issued by Bass. LAPD officers also must document the name and badge number of the agents’ on-scene supervisor.

— CONTESTING CLEANUPS: A federal judge ruled this week that the city of L.A. violated the constitutional rights of homeless people by seizing and destroying their personal property during encampment cleanups. Lawyers for the plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer to issue an injunction requiring the city to give homeless people the opportunity to contest the seizure of their property.

— HOTEL HIKE: Voters in the June 2 election will be asked to hike the city’s tax on nightly hotel stays — increasing it to 16% from 14% — for the next three years. The tax would then drop to 15% in 2029.

— PAYDAY POLITICS: The county is considering a proposal that would remove supervisors’ final decision-making power in contract disputes involving sheriff’s deputies and firefighters. Supporters say it’ll take politics out of labor negotiations while opponents warn of bloated labor costs.

QUICK HITS

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature homelessness program went to Los Angeles City Council District 13, bringing 50 unhoused Angelenos indoors from an encampment.
• On the docket next week: The county’s back to its marathon budget briefings. Tune in Tuesday for presentations from the sheriff, district attorney and probation department.

Stay in touch

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

The head of the powerful Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, blasted Nithya Raman on Wednesday, calling the city council member an “opportunist” for launching a campaign to unseat Mayor Karen Bass after previously signaling her support for Bass.

Federation president Yvonne Wheeler said in a statement that her organization, which represents an estimated 800,000 workers, will “use every tool” in its arsenal to get Bass reelected.

“With Donald Trump’s ongoing war against the people of Los Angeles, our working families and immigrant communities, now is not the time for distractions from a political opportunist — especially one who backed the Mayor’s re-election campaign just weeks ago,” Wheeler said.

Raman, whose district stretches from Silver Lake to Reseda, was announced as one of the mayor’s endorsers on Jan. 27 in a campaign press release listing Bass’ San Fernando Valley supporters. Two days later, she appeared in a second campaign press release as one of Bass’ female endorsers.

Raman launched her own last-minute mayoral bid on Saturday, saying that City Hall is unable to “manage the basics.”

The primary election is June 2, followed by a November runoff if no candidate secures a majority of the vote.

Raman’s campaign team did not immediately respond to Wheeler’s assertions after being contacted by The Times.

In her statement, Wheeler described Bass as a “lifelong progressive” while suggesting that Raman, whose council campaigns were backed by the Democratic Socialists of America and several other progressive groups, falls short on that front.

“You can’t truly be progressive unless you are a true champion of working people,” she said. “Karen Bass is the only candidate in this race who meets that criteria.”

The federation represents about 300 labor organizations in L.A. County, including unions representing teachers, social workers, construction trades and entertainment industry workers. In previous city elections, the group has spent big on its favored candidates, paying for campaign materials, door-to-door canvassers and other expenses.

Raman broke with the labor federation and her colleagues in September, voting against the $2.6-billion expansion of the Los Angeles Convention Center.

Before that vote, labor unions said the upgrade would generate much-needed construction jobs at a time when housing production has been down. Raman and Councilmember Katy Yaroslavsky warned the project was too financially risky and would saddle the city with significant budget shortfalls starting in 2031 — after Bass is out of office.

“What I fear is that we’re going to have a beautiful new Convention Center surrounded by far more homelessness than we have today, which will drive away tourists, which will prevent people from coming here and holding their events here,” Raman said at the time.

Bass supported the project, as did a majority of the council.

Raman also drew the ire of some construction union leaders last month by drafting a last-minute proposal to ask voters to change Measure ULA, a tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Raman, who described herself as a supporter of Measure ULA, brought her proposal to the council floor one day before the deadline to take action.

Raman, who backed Measure ULA in 2022, said she now believes it has had unintended consequences, putting a major damper on real estate development and inhibiting the production of much-needed housing.

Los Angeles County leaders are pushing forward a measure for the November ballot that would remove their ability to have final say on one of the costliest decisions they make: How much to pay firefighters and sheriff’s deputies.

The supervisors voted 4 to 0 on Tuesday to have their lawyers draft a ballot measure that would give final decision-making power in contract disputes regarding pay and working conditions for public safety workers to a three-person panel, a practice known as binding arbitration.

Supporters say the proposal, which the supervisors are pushing to get on the November ballot, would offer a new tool to smooth over disputes and provide a “reset” after recent tumultuous contract negotiations.

“It incentivizes both parties to come to a fair agreement,” said Supervisor Lindsey Horvath, who introduced the measure along with Supervisor Hilda Solis.

The supervisors are expected to vote again on the proposal in the coming months before putting it on the ballot.

Currently, if contract talks hit an impasse, the five county supervisors can, after a complex mediation process, impose a final offer. Public safety workers, who are not allowed to strike, say they have no leverage with which to fight back, giving the county final word.

Under the new proposal, the power dynamics would shift. An arbitration panel would instead make the final decision on some contract disputes for public safety employees, including firefighters, sheriff’s deputies and county lifeguards. The panel would have one arbitrator chosen by the county, one chosen by the union and one agreed to by both sides.

It’s rare for labor negotiations to get to this point. The county said it has imposed contract terms after reaching impasse over negotiations twice since 2001, once with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in 2001 and Supervising Deputy Probation Officers in 2024.

“The goal is to never have to get to that step,” Horvath said.

Unions say the measure would give them needed leverage and remove political pressure from the thorniest contract questions. Critics say it shifts financial control away from politicians and into the hands of unaccountable arbitrators, which could lead to bloated labor costs.

“Arbitrators aren’t elected, they’re not required to weigh countywide trade-offs like homeless services, healthcare, capital improvements, all of those things,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, the only supervisor to abstain from the vote.

Interim County Executive Officer Joseph M. Nicchitta said he viewed it as a potential “seismic change” in how the county handles labor negotiations.

“Because the arbitrators ‘pick a winner’ as between the parties’ final offers, the decision will no longer be a compromise. One side will win,” Nicchitta wrote in a Feb. 9 letter to the board.

Substantial raises mandated by arbitrators, he wrote, “could, among other things, materially and detrimentally increase the County’s day-to-day operating costs, lead to workforce reductions and program curtailments, balloon our unfunded pension liabilities, and damage the County’s credit ratings.”

The decision of who gets final say over wage increases will become increasingly important as county leaders try to steer the government through financial tumult brought on by federal cuts, booming labor costs and billions in sex abuse payouts. Last week, the supervisors unanimously approved $200 million in homeless service cuts to close the budget gap.

Horvath said more than 20 jurisdictions in California use binding arbitration for public safety workers, including the counties of San Francisco and Sacramento.

Public safety unions are simultaneously gathering signatures to get the proposal on the ballot in case the board decides against moving forward. A coalition of public safety unions has started a campaign arguing that binding arbitration would “remove politics from pay decisions” and leave “pay decisions in the hands of neutral experts.”

“They have every intention and probably all of the resources needed to collect signatures to put something on the ballot that gets them this,” Supervisor Janice Hahn said. “This makes sense to work on something that we can have some input in.”

L.A. County voters will be asked this June to hike the sales tax rate by a half-cent to soften the blow of federal funding cuts on the region’s public health system.

The county Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 Tuesday to put the sales tax on the ballot. County officials estimate it would generate $1 billion per year to replenish the shrinking budgets of local hospitals and clinics. The tax, if approved by voters this summer, would last for five years.

The supervisors say the increased tax — a half-cent of every dollar spent — would offset major funding cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which is expected to slash more than $2 billion from the county’s budget for health services over the next three years.

“Millions of people look to us to step up even when the federal government has walked away,” said Supervisor Holly Mitchell, who introduced the ballot proposal along with Supervisor Hilda Solis.

The tax was pushed by Restore Healthcare for Angelenos, a coalition of healthcare workers and advocates, who argue it is necessary to ward off mass layoffs of healthcare workers and keep emergency rooms open.

Mitchell said she was trying to make sure supervisors learned their lesson from the closure of Martin Luther King Jr./Drew Medical Center in 2007, which ripped a gaping hole in the health system for South L.A. residents who had to travel farther to more crowded emergency rooms.

“People died as a result of that,” she said. “I don’t want to go back there.”

Supervisor Kathryn Barger cast the lone no vote, saying she believed the county should look to the state for help rather than taxpayers. She also said she was concerned the tax money was not earmarked for healthcare costs but rather would go into the general fund, giving officials more discretion over how it gets spent.

“We are not, as a whole, credible when it comes to promises made, promises broken,” she said.

Members of the audience hold up signs inside the county Hall of Administration, where supervisors discussed how to replenish more than $2 billion in federal funding cuts to the county healthcare system.

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

As part of the tax hike, voters would be asked to also approve the creation of an oversight group to monitor how the money is spent. The supervisors also voted on a spending plan for the money, which would have the largest chunk of funds go to care for uninsured residents.

Los Angeles County currently has a sales tax of 9.75% with cities adding their own sales tax on top. If the healthcare hike passes this summer, the sales tax would be more than 11% in some cities. Palmdale and Lancaster, some of the poorest parts of the county, would potentially have the highest sales tax of 11.75%.

County public health officials painted a grim picture of what life looks like for the poorest and sickest residents if new money doesn’t flow into the system. Emergency rooms could be shuttered, they warned. Contact tracing and the daily testing of ocean water quality could slow down. Tens of thousands of health workers could lose their jobs, they said.

“The threat is real already,” said Barbara Ferrer, the head of the county Department of Public Health.

Some on Tuesday condemned the measure as well-intentioned but ill-formulated. The California Contract Cities Assn., a coalition of cities inside Los Angeles County, argued a larger sales tax would “disproportionately burden the very residents the County seeks to protect.”

“My phone has been blowing up,” said Janice Hahn, one of two supervisors who said the Citadel Outlets, a large shopping mall in City of Commerce, called to say they were worried shoppers were going to start crossing county lines.

With the effects of the federal cuts expected to be felt across the state, other California counties have already started to look to consumers to replenish government coffers. Last November, Santa Clara County voters approved a similar sales tax measure to raise money for the public health system.

Lindsey Horvath will not run for Los Angeles mayor, becoming the latest political heavyweight to decide against a challenge to incumbent Karen Bass.

Horvath, who as an L.A. County supervisor represents 2 million people in a sprawling Westside and San Fernando Valley district, ended weeks of speculation about her political intentions, saying her work in the county “is not finished.”

“Over these past few months, you have shown me all the reasons you love Los Angeles —and why it’s worth fighting for,” Horvath said Friday in a statement. “I am grateful to the many leaders, organizations, and every single Angeleno who urged me to run for Mayor of Los Angeles.”

Horvath’s announcement, issued the night before the deadline for candidates to file, comes days after former L.A. schools superintendent Austin Beutner ended his mayoral campaign, citing the death of his 22-year-old daughter. Real estate developer Rick Caruso also removed himself from contention, saying for a second time Thursday that he would not run.

The filing period for mayoral candidates in the June 2 primary closes at noon on Saturday.

Horvath, 43, has been one of the mayor’s most outspoken critics over the past year, assailing her record on homelessness and last year’s Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead. On social media, Horvath stoked speculation about her political future while calling the city’s record on homelessness “indefensible.”

Bass, in turn, has criticized county officials for pulling hundreds of millions of dollars out of a city-county agency on homelessness — a move spearheaded by Horvath — and into a new county agency. More recently, the mayor spoke out against the county’s plan to cut $200 million in homeless services.

Bass, 72, still faces several other challengers from across the political spectrum.

Reality TV star Spencer Pratt, a Republican, has received praise from an array of Trump supporters, including Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, of Florida. Pratt has focused heavily on the city’s handling of the fire, which destroyed his home.

Democratic socialist Rae Huang is running against the mayor from her political left. Huang has called for more public housing and for a reduction in the number of police officers, with the cost savings poured into other city services.

Brentwood tech entrepreneur Adam Miller, who describes himself as a lifelong Democrat, said the city is on a downward trajectory and needs stronger management. The 56-year-old nonprofit executive plans to tap his personal wealth to jump-start his campaign.

Also in the race is Asaad Alnajjar, an employee of the Bureau of Street Lighting who sits on the Porter Ranch Neighborhood Council. Alnajjar, who has already loaned his campaign $80,000, said he would do a better job than Bass at running the city.

“I’m a leader. She’s a manager. That’s the difference,” said Alnajjar, 61.

With so many candidates in the mix, Bass and her political team do not expect she will clear the 50% bar to avoid a November runoff.

Bass has been running on her record, touting a major drop in homicides and reductions in street homelessness since she took office in 2022. She has talked up her efforts to speed up the approval of affordable housing and permits for rebuilding projects in Pacific Palisades.

The mayor has positioned herself as a check on Trump’s agenda. During last summer’s immigration raids in Los Angeles, she regularly called on the president to end the crackdown and remove the California National Guard from the city.

From the beginning, a mayoral run would have been a risky move for Horvath, who is not expected to face any major challengers to her own bid for reelection.

Horvath would have had to forfeit her seat to run against Bass, while facing a tight timeline for fundraising. Her campaign had already scheduled a reelection fundraiser for next week — after the filing deadline for mayoral candidates.

In political circles, Horvath is viewed as a strong candidate in 2028 for county chief executive, an elected office created through a ballot measure that Horvath championed.

The will-she-or-won’t-she events of the past week elevated Horvath’s political profile, as she aired her criticisms of the mayor on CNN and other news shows.

Relations between Bass and Horvath have been chilly at least since the Palisades fire broke out. The two were at odds over the press conferences that were held to update the public on the disaster and on efforts to reopen the burn area to traffic.

The relationship deteriorated further after Horvath and her colleagues voted to shift hundreds of millions of dollars out of the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county partnership, and into a new county agency on homelessness.

Horvath, on social media, accused Bass of putting out “misinformation” about the new county agency. Bass, in turn, warned the county’s actions could cause the city to backslide in its fight against homelessness.

Horvath has been in elected office on and off since 2009, when she joined the West Hollywood City Council. She left the council in 2011, then rejoined in 2015, staying for about seven years.

In 2022, Horvath won her supervisorial seat, defeating former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, a political veteran.

Had she entered the race, Horvath would have faced questions about an array of issues bedeviling the county, including a $4-billion legal payout over sexual abuse that was later marred by allegations of fraud.

She was also a major force behind Measure G, a 2024 ballot measure that will expand the number of county supervisors and create the county CEO position but also is on track to inadvertently repeal a criminal justice reform measure passed by voters in the wake of the police murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Feb. 4 (UPI) — Fulton County, Georgia, filed a motion in federal court on Wednesday demanding the return of election materials taken from the county by the FBI.

The motion was filed under seal, said Jessica Corbitt, a spokesperson for the county, to The New York Times. It also asks for the affidavit filed in support of the search warrant to be unsealed.

Robb Pitts, chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, said at a press conference Wednesday that the motion was a way to uphold the Constitution and the rights of Fulton County voters.

“We will fight using all resources against those who seek to take over our elections,” he said. “Our Constitution itself is at stake in this fight.”

Fulton County Commissioner Marvin Arrington Jr. said the motion is important to the people of his county because “actions like this mass seizure risk sowing seeds of distrust in the election process.”

“This morning’s filing could not have come fast enough; justice delayed is justice denied,” Arrington said in a statement to USA Today. “The people of Fulton County deserve justice now, and that’s why I pushed so hard to get this motion filed as soon as possible.”

On Jan. 28, the FBI seized large quantities of materials from the Election Hub and Operations Center in Union City, Ga., just outside of Atlanta. They specifically took items from the 2020 election, which President Donald Trump has claimed he won, despite a lack of evidence.

Fulton County, which makes up a large portion of Atlanta, is a strongly Democratic county and is the most populous in the state.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard was present at the raid, and lawmakers have demanded to know why. She responded that Trump had requested that she be there.

In a letter to Rep. James Himes, D-Conn., and Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., Gabbard defended her presence.

“My presence was requested by the President and executed under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate and analyze intelligence related to election security, including counterintelligence, foreign and other malign influence and cybersecurity,” she said.

The Times reported that a day after the raid, Gabbard facilitated a phone call between her, Trump and the FBI agents involved.

“Tulsi Gabbard has no legal role in domestic law enforcement, yet 5 days ago she participated in an FBI raid of Fulton County, Georgia’s, election office — the center of Trump’s 2020 election conspiracy theories,” Warner said on X on Monday.

“And now we find out that she orchestrated a call between Trump and the FBI agents conducting the raid? Something’s not passing the smell test …,” he said.

Trump has recently said that he wants to “nationalize” the upcoming midterm elections, though he has no legal authority to do so.

The FBI agents loaded three box trucks of evidence from the election facility. Fulton County officials said that more than 20 pallets of ballots, election tape and equipment were taken, but they don’t have a list of items from the Department of Justice, The Times reported.

“We don’t even have copies of what they took, so it’s a problem,” Pitts said. He added that the county wants the items back “so we can take an inventory” of what was taken.

“We don’t know where they are. We don’t know, really, who has them,” The Times reported he said. “We don’t know what they’re doing with them. Are they being tampered with? I can use my imagination, and I would certainly hope not. But we just – we don’t know.”

Pitts mentioned Trump’s comments about taking over the elections in about 15 states.

“We’ll be the test case,” he said. “If they’re successful in Georgia — Fulton County, Georgia, in particular — the others on that list of 15 plus states, they should be aware.”

He said the raid was “probably the first step in whatever they’re going to do in order to depress voter participation, voter registration, making whatever changes they think are necessary to help their case in 2026, but more importantly, in 2028.”

ATLANTA — Georgia’s Fulton County has gone to federal court seeking the return of all ballots and other documents from the 2020 election that were seized by the FBI last week from a warehouse near Atlanta.

Its motion also asks for the unsealing of a law enforcement agent’s sworn statement that was presented to the judge who approved the search warrant, the county chairman, Robb Pitts, said Wednesday. The filing on behalf of Pitts and the county election board is not being made public because the case is under seal, he said.

The Jan. 28 search at Fulton County’s main election facility in Union City sought records related to the 2020 election. Many Democrats have criticized what they see as the use of the FBI and the Justice Department to pursue President Trump’s political foes.

The Republican president and his allies have fixated on the heavily Democratic county, the state’s most populous, since the Republican narrowly lost the election in Georgia to Democrat Joe Biden that year. Trump has long insisted without evidence that widespread voter fraud in the county cost him victory in the state.

“The president himself and his allies, they refuse to accept the fact that they lost,” Pitts said. “And even if he had won Georgia, he would still have lost the presidency.”

Pitts defended the county’s election practices and said Fulton has conducted 17 elections since 2020 without any issues.

“This case is not only about Fulton County. This is about elections across Georgia and across the nation,” Pitts said, citing comments by Trump earlier this week on a podcast where he called for Republicans to “take over” and “nationalize” elections. White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt has said the president was referring to legislative efforts.

A warrant cover sheet provided to the county includes a list of items that the agents were seeking related to the 2020 general election: all ballots, tabulator tapes from the scanners that tally the votes, electronic ballot images created when the ballots were counted and then recounted, and all voter rolls.

The FBI drove away with hundreds of boxes of ballots and other documents. County officials say they were not told why the federal government wanted the documents.

“What they’re doing with the ballots that they have now, we don’t know, but if they’re counted fairly and honestly, the results will be the same,” Pitts said.

Andrew Bailey, the FBI’s co-deputy director, and Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, were seen on-site, at the time. Democrat in Congress have questioned the propriety of Gabbard’s presence because the search was a law enforcement, not intelligence, action.

In a letter to top Democrats on the House and Senate Intelligence committees Monday, she said Trump asked her to be there “under my broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyze intelligence related to election security.”

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.

A top Los Angeles politician said Tuesday that LA 2028 Olympics committee chair Casey Wasserman should resign following revelations about racy emails he exchanged with convicted sex offender Ghislaine Maxwell.

“I think Casey Wasserman needs to step down,” said L.A. County Supervisor Janice Hahn, who along with other L.A. politicians is working with the LA28 Olympics organizing committee on planning of the Games.

“Having him represent us on the world stage distracts focus from our athletes and the enormous effort needed to prepare for 2028,” said Hahn, who represents an area of south Los Angeles County that includes coastal neighborhoods.

A representative for Wasserman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Wasserman and other top officials with LA 2028, which is in charge of paying for and planning the Games, are in Italy for meetings ahead of the Winter Olympics.

Hahn’s comments follow the release of investigative files on Jeffrey Epstein released last week by the Justice Department that include personal emails exchanged more than 20 years ago between Wasserman and Maxwell, Epstein’s former romantic partner.

In emails sent in March and April 2003, Wasserman — who was married at the time — writes to Maxwell about wanting to book a massage and wanting to see her in a tight leather outfit.

She offers to give him a massage that can “drive a man wild,” and the pair discuss how much they miss each other, according to files released and posted online by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In a statement released Saturday, Wasserman said he regretted his correspondence with Maxwell, which he said occurred “long before her horrific crimes came to light.”

“I never had a personal or business relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. As is well documented, I went on a humanitarian trip as part of a delegation with the Clinton Foundation in 2002 on the Epstein plane. I am terribly sorry for having any association with either of them,” he said in the statement.

The Daily Mail in 2024 published an extensive story on Wasserman’s alleged affairs during his marriage with Laura Ziffren, whom he divorced. He denied the accusations.

Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did something this week that would have been unthinkable three years ago — she took an unprompted swipe at her counterparts in L.A. County.

Bass, while weighing in on L.A.’s so-called “mansion tax,” dinged the county for creating what she called a “bureaucratic” homelessness agency, saying it threatened to undermine the city’s progress on the crisis.

County Supervisor Lindsey Horvath hit back hard, telling Bass on X that the county created the new agency because the existing one — which is partly overseen by Bass appointees — was incapable of tracking its spending.

“The County is fixing the problems you’ve ignored,” Horvath said.

Things have been bad between Bass and Horvath for more than a year, with the two Democrats taking veiled, and sometimes not-so-veiled, swipes at each other. But could they become adversaries in the truest sense of the word — as head-to-head rivals in this year’s mayoral election?

Horvath, who has spent months lining up endorsements for her own reelection campaign, has until Saturday to decide whether to enter the mayor’s race, challenging Bass’ bid for a second term. She told The Times she is seriously weighing a run — and “spending the weekend in deep reflection” with friends and family.

“From a young age, my faith has guided me through the most important moments of my life,” said Horvath, who is Catholic. “This is one of those moments.”

Bass, who is running in the June 2 primary for a second term, is already facing challenges from reality television star Spencer Pratt, former school superintendent Austin Beutner and community organizer Rae Huang, who has focused heavily on housing issues. Still, a Horvath bid would reshape the contest dramatically.

Beutner has not campaigned publicly since Jan. 5, one day before his 22-year-old daughter died of undetermined causes. Real estate developer Rick Caruso opted on Jan. 16 to stay out of the race, after sharply criticizing Bass for more than a year.

On paper, a Horvath mayoral bid looks somewhat risky. If she takes the plunge, she would no longer be permitted to seek reelection to her supervisorial seat, representing about 2 million people on the Westside and in the San Fernando Valley. Bass has been raising money for more than a year and has locked up key endorsements, including the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor.

If she runs, Horvath would face questions about the county’s difficulties, including a $4-billion legal payout over sexual abuse that has been marred by fraud allegations and a screwup surrounding Measure G, the 2024 ballot measure that will expand the number of county supervisors but also is on track to inadvertently repeal a criminal justice reform measure.

On top of that, there’s the secret $2-million payout to the county’s top executive.

Horvath said she’s seen recent polling that makes clear that “there’s an appetite for change” among Angelenos. Community leaders, residents of her supervisorial district and “those longing for a better Los Angeles” have been asking her to run, she said.

“I am listening carefully and seriously both to those who are urging me to enter this race, and to those who are eager to continue the work we have begun together at the County,” she said in a statement.

A spokesperson for the Bass campaign said he does not comment on prospective candidates. Pratt, for his part, said he’s rooting for Horvath to jump in so that “voters can see two career politicians calling each other out for the failed policies they both promoted.”

“Lindsey Horvath and Karen Bass are both responsible for the decline of our city, and the more they talk about each other, the more the public will see why we need a complete reset,” he said in a statement.

Even if Horvath doesn’t run, it looks like her relationship with the mayor will be rocky for the foreseeable future. The first-term supervisor has emerged as one of Bass’ most outspoken critics, highlighting an array of issues at City Hall.

Earlier this month, Horvath told The Times that she hears regularly from Angelenos who complain that they’re not getting basic services. She said that support within City Hall for Inside Safe, the mayor’s program to combat homelessness, is eroding.

Horvath has also taken aim at the city’s response to the Palisades fire, pointing out in a letter to Gov. Gavin Newsom that the Fire Department’s after-action report was watered down and then disavowed by its author. A day later, she told CBS2 that Bass was not being truthful about the county’s new homelessness agency.

Bass also has her own bully pulpit. On Friday, she stood outside federal court and railed against the indictment of independent journalist Don Lemon, calling it an “assault on our democracy.” Prosecutors have accused Lemon of violating federal law while reporting on a protest inside a Minnesota church.

The strained relations between Bass and Horvath are noteworthy given the mayor’s heavy focus on collaboration early on in her administration, when she triumphantly declared she was “locking arms” with a wide array of elected officials — including county supervisors — in the fight against homelessness.

Bass has attempted to stay above the fray, mostly avoiding direct conflict with other politicians — at least in public. But the Palisades fire, which destroyed thousands of homes and left 12 people dead, showed things weren’t always amiable behind the scenes.

Two weeks after the fires, Horvath and Bass were at odds over their joint public appearances, with Horvath complaining via text message that the mayor’s approach didn’t feel “very ‘locked arms.’”

Months later, Horvath and her colleagues on the Board of Supervisors voted to pull hundreds of millions of dollars from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, moving the money to the new county homelessness agency.

Horvath said the change was urgently needed in the wake of highly damaging reports about LAHSA’s financial oversight. Bass, in turn, warned the move would create a “monumental disruption” for the city’s effort to bring unhoused residents indoors.

Last month, Bass published an opinion piece in the Daily News criticizing the county, pointing out that its new homelessness agency was already proposing cuts to programs that have served the city’s unhoused population.

Bass echoed that criticism in a recent interview, saying the cuts were proposed a year after voters approved a half-cent sales tax to fund homeless services.

Those reductions, if enacted, would scale back the operations of A Pathway Home, the county’s counterpart to Inside Safe.

“We are going to do the best we can without a full partner in the county,” Bass said.

Horvath, for her part, said she wants to scale back A Pathway Home because it is too costly — and is not achieving the success that county officials want.

State of play

— BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD: City Councilmember Nithya Raman fell short in her attempt to send voters a ballot proposal rewriting Measure ULA, the tax on property sales of $5.3 million and up. Councilmembers said they did not even want to discuss the idea until it had been vetted by her committee.

— PIT BULL PAYOUT: The city paid more than $3 million last year to a woman who adopted a dog from the South L.A. animal shelter, only to have it attack her two days later. She later found out the dog had bitten a grandmother’s face. The case is raising questions about the way some shelter dogs are promoted on Instagram and other platforms.

— HEADING TO TRIAL: After a weeklong hearing, a judge ruled on Wednesday that the criminal case against Councilmember Curren Price can proceed to trial. Price, who has been charged with embezzlement, perjury and violations of conflict-of-interest laws, is slated to leave office in December. His lawyer said he did not act with “wrongful intent.”

— CLEARING CASES: Los Angeles police solved more than two thirds of homicides citywide in 2025, in a year that ended with the fewest number of slayings in six decades, according to figures released Thursday.

— GIVING TO GIBSON DUNN: The council signed off on a $1.8-million increase to its legal contract with Gibson Dunn, which is representing the city in the seemingly endless L.A. Alliance case. The increase, which passed on a 9-4 vote, brings the contract to nearly $7.5 million.

— PAYOUT PAUSE: Los Angeles County will halt some payments from its $4-billion sex-abuse settlement, as prosecutors ramp up their probe into allegations of fraud.

— LAPD VS. PROTESTER: A tense exchange between an LAPD captain and one of the Police Department’s most outspoken critics has gone viral.

— BATTLING TRUMP, PART 1: President Trump signed an executive order to allow victims of the Los Angeles wildfires to rebuild without obtaining “unnecessary, duplicative, or obstructive” permits. The order, which is likely to be challenged by the city and state, was immediately derided by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said Trump should provide FEMA relief.

— BATTLING TRUMP, PART 2: Trump also vowed to fight the construction of new low-income housing in the Pacific Palisades burn area. L.A. officials say no projects are planned.

Quick hits

• Where is Inside Safe? The mayor’s signature program to fight homelessness went to the area around Gage Avenue at St. Andrews Place, located in the South L.A. district represented by Councilmember Marqueece Harris-Dawson.
• On the docket next week: Bass delivers the first of her two State of the City speeches, which has been billed as a “unifying celebration of Los Angeles.”

Stay in touch

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

Los Angeles County will halt some payments from its $4-billion sex abuse settlement, leaving many plaintiffs on edge as prosecutors ramp up an investigation into allegations of fraud.

L.A. County agreed last spring to the record payout to settle a flood of lawsuits from people who said they’d been sexually abused by staff in government-run foster homes and juvenile camps. Many attorneys had told their clients they could expect the first tranche of money to start flowing this month.

But the county’s acting chief executive officer, Joseph M. Nicchitta, said Thursday that the county would “pause all payments” for unvetted claims after a request by Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman. These are claims that have been flagged as requiring a “higher level of scrutiny,” according to a joint report submitted Thursday by attorneys in the settlement.

The district attorney announced he would investigate the historic settlement after reporting by The Times that found some plaintiffs who said they were paid to sue. Investigators have found “a significant number of cases where we believe there is potential fraud,” according to a spokesperson for the prosecutor’s office. The State Bar is spearheading a separate inquiry into fraud allegations.

On Jan. 9, Hochman formally requested the county pause the distribution of funds for at least six months, which he said would give his office “a reasonable opportunity to complete critical investigative steps.”

“Premature disbursement of settlement funds poses a substantial risk of interfering with the investigation by complicating witness cooperation, obscuring financial trails, and impairing my office’s ability to identify and prosecute fraudulent activity,” Hochman wrote in a letter to Andy Baum, the county’s main outside attorney working on the settlement.

Plaintiff lawyers argued the county was required to turn over money by the end of the month.

The county said it came to an agreement Thursday and plans to turn over $400 million on Friday, which would “cover claims that have already been validated,” according to a statement from Nicchitta. That money will go into a fund where it will be distributed when judges are finished vetting and deciding how much each claim is worth.

“No plaintiff was getting paid until the allocation process is completed,” said the county’s top lawyer, Dawyn Harrison. “The County is not overseeing that intensive process.”

The rest of the payments, Nicchitta said, will be on hold until the claims can “be appropriately investigated.”

“The County takes extremely seriously its obligations to provide just compensation to survivors. Preventing fraud is central to that commitment,” he said. “Fraudulent claims of sexual assault harm survivors by diluting compensation for survivors and casting public doubt over settlements as a whole.”

The uncertainty has sparked a sense of despair among those who spent the last few years wading through the darkest memories of their lives in hopes of a life-changing sum.

Andrea Proctor, 45, said the last few years have been like “digging into a scar that was healed.”

“The whole lawsuit just blew air out of me,” said Proctor, who sued in 2022 over alleged abuse at MacLaren Children’s Center, an El Monte shelter where she says she was drugged and sexually abused by staff as a teenager. “I’m just sitting out here empty.”

Proctor said she desperately needs the money to stabilize her life, the first part of which was spent careening from one crisis to the next — an instability she traces partially to the abuse she suffered as a minor.

Since a 2020 law change that extended the statute of limitations to sue over childhood sexual abuse, thousands have come forward with claims of abuse in county-run facilities dating back decades. The county resolved claims it faced last year through two massive payouts — the first settlement for $4 billion, which includes roughly 11,000 plaintiffs, and a second one last October worth $828 million, which includes about 400 victims.

Now, according to court filings made public Tuesday, the county faces an additional 5,500 claims of the same nature, leaving the prospect of a third hefty payout looming on the horizon.

“They’re telling me the ship has sailed,” said Martin Gould, a partner with Gould Grieco & Hensley, who said he wants this next flood of litigation to focus on pushing for arrests of predatory staff members still on the county’s payroll. “I don’t believe that.”

Gould says his firm, based in Chicago, represents about 70 victims in the new litigation. James Harris Law Firm, a small Seattle-based firm that specializes in big personal injury cases, has about 3,000. The Right Trial Lawyers, a firm that lists a Texas office as its headquarters, has about 700, according to an attorney affiliated with the firm.

These lawyers will be pleading their cases in front of a public — and a Board of Supervisors — at a moment when the conversation has shifted from a reckoning over systemic sexual abuse inside county facilities to concerns about the use of taxpayer money.

A series of Times investigations last fall found nine clients represented by Downtown LA Law Group, or DTLA, who said they were paid by recruiters to sue. Four said they were told to make up their claims.

All the lawsuits filed by the firm, which represents roughly a quarter of the plaintiffs in the $4-billion settlement, are now under review by Daniel Buckley, a former presiding judge of the county’s Superior Court.

DTLA has repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and said in a previous statement that it “categorically does not engage in, nor has it ever condoned, the exchange of money for client retention.”

Several DTLA clients said they were unaware of the probes by the State Bar and the district attorney, though they were told this month to expect delays in payments due, in part, to “a higher-than-expected false claim potential.”

The delays have caused extra anguish for some plaintiffs who have taken out loans against their settlement.

Proctor took out loans worth $15,000 from High Rise Financial, an L.A.-based legal funding company, which collects a larger portion of her payout with each passing year. She now owes more than $34,000, according to loan statements.

Proctor said High Rise Financial recently inquired about buying her out of the settlement payment, which the county is expected to pay out over five years. The loan company told her she could get a percentage of her settlement up front in a lump sum, with the company pocketing the rest as profit. For example, she said, she was told if she received a $300,000 payout, she could get $205,000 up front.

“Conversations were held with consumers to assess their interest in a potential financial arrangement related to a possible settlement,” High Rise said in a statement. “No agreements were sent, nor were any transactions entered into.”

Proctor’s friend Krista Hubbard, who also sued over abuse at MacLaren Children’s Center, borrowed $20,000 to help her through a period of homelessness. She now owes nearly $43,000. She said she, too, got the same offer this month from High Rise of getting bought out of her settlement.

Hubbard, who is crashing at the home of her godfather in Arkansas, said she’s considering it.

“How much longer is it going to take?” she said. “Am I going to be able to not be homeless?”

The $828-million settlement, which includes just three law firms, is running into its own roadblock with lawyers belatedly learning that roughly 30 of their clients were also set to receive money from the $4-billion settlement despite rules barring plaintiffs from receiving money from both.

The overlap has led to a dispute over which pot of money should cover payments to those plaintiffs. Those in the $828-million settlement, which has a much smaller pool of plaintiffs, are expected to get much more.

“It reeks,” said Courtney Thom, an attorney with Manly Stewart & Finaldi, who said she believed the county should have flagged long ago that there were identical clients in both settlements.

“It is not for me to fact-check for the county,” she told Judge Lawrence Riff at a court hearing Wednesday. “It is not for me to cross-reference names.”

Some of these plaintiffs had two different sexual abuse claims against the county — for example, one lawsuit alleged abuse in foster care while a second involved juvenile halls. Other clients had identical claims in both groups and mistakenly believed the two firms that represented them were compiling the information into one claim, Thom said.

Baum, the outside attorney defending the county, told Riff he wanted to ensure the clients didn’t “have their hands in two cookie jars.”

UNION CITY, Ga. — FBI agents were executing a search warrant at the Fulton County elections office near Atlanta on Wednesday, an agency spokesperson confirmed.

An FBI spokesperson said agents were “executing a court authorized law enforcement action” at the county’s main election office in Union City, just south of Atlanta. The spokesperson declined to provide any further information, citing an ongoing matter.

The search comes as the FBI under the leadership of Director Kash Patel has moved quickly to pursue the political grievances of President Trump, including by working with the Justice Department to investigate multiple perceived adversaries of the Republican commander-in-chief.

The Justice Department had no immediate comment.

Trump has long insisted that the 2020 election was stolen even though judges across the country and his own attorney general said they found no evidence of widespread fault that tipped the contest in Democrat Joe Biden’s favor.

He has long made Georgia, one of the battleground states he lost in 2020, a central target for his complaints about the election and memorably pleaded with its then-secretary of state to “find” him enough votes to overturn the contest.

Last week, in reference to the 2020 election, he asserted that “people will soon be prosecuted for what they did.” It was not clear what in particular he was referring to.

Fulton County District Atty. Fani Willis in August 2023 obtained an indictment against Trump and 18 others, accusing them of participating in a wide-ranging scheme to illegally try to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election. That case was dismissed in November after courts barred Willis and her office from pursuing it because of an “appearance of impropriety” stemming from a romantic relationship she had with a prosecutor she had appointed to lead the case.

Brumback writes for the Associated Press.