lawsuit

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.”

Rapper RBX has sued Spotify, alleging that the Swedish audio company has failed to stop the artificial inflation of music streams for artists like Drake and is hurting the revenue other rights holders receive through the platform.

RBX, whose real name is Eric Dwayne Collins, is seeking a class-action status and damages and restitution from Spotify. RBX, along with other rights holders, receive payment based on how often their music is streamed on Spotify, according to the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in L.A. on Sunday.

Spotify pays rights holders a percentage of revenue based on the total streams attributed to them compared with total volume of streams for all songs, the lawsuit said.

The Long Beach-based rapper said that rights holders are losing money on Spotify because streams of some artists are being artificially inflated through bots powered by automated software, even though the use of such bots is prohibited on the platform, according to the lawsuit.

For example, the lawsuit notes that over a four-day period in 2024 there were at least 250,000 streams of Drake’s “No Face” song that appeared to originate in Turkey, but “were falsely geomapped through the coordinated use of VPNs to the United Kingdom in attempt to obscure their origins.”

Spotify knew or should have known “with reasonable diligence, that fraudulent activities were occurring on its platform,” states the lawsuit, describing the streamer’s policies to root out fraud as “window dressing.”

Spotify declined to comment on the pending litigation but said it “in no way benefits from the industry-wide challenge of artificial streaming.”

“We heavily invest in always-improving, best-in-class systems to combat it and safeguard artist payouts with strong protections like removing fake streams, withholding royalties, and charging penalties,” Spotify said in a statement.

Last year, a U.S. producer was accused of stealing $10 million from streaming services and Spotify said it was able to limit the theft on its platform to $60,000, touting it as evidence that its systems are working.

The platform is also making efforts to push back against AI-generated music that is made without artists’ permission. In September, Spotify announced it had removed more than 75 million AI-generated “spammy” music tracks from its platform over the last 12 months.

A representative for Drake did not immediately return a request for comment.

RBX is known for his work on Dr. Dre’s 1992 album “The Chronic” and Snoop Dogg’s 1993 album “Doggystyle.” He has multiple solo albums and has collaborated with artists including on Eminem’s “The Marshall Mathers LP” and Kris Kross’ “Da Bomb.” RBX is Snoop Dogg’s cousin.

Artificial intelligence continues to change the way that the entertainment industry operates, affecting everything from film and TV production to music. In the music industry, companies have sued AI startups, accusing the businesses of taking copyrighted music to train AI models.

At the same time, some music artists have embraced AI, using the technology to test bold ideas in music videos and in their songs.

CHICAGO — A judge heard testimony Tuesday about overflowing toilets, crowded cells, no beds and water that “tasted like sewer” at a Chicago-area building that serves as a key detention spot for people rounded up in the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Three people who were held at the building in Broadview, just outside Chicago, offered rare public accounts about the conditions there as U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman considers ordering changes at a site that has become a flashpoint for protests and confrontations with federal agents.

“I don’t want anyone else to live what I lived through,” said Felipe Agustin Zamacona, 47, an Amazon driver and Mexican immigrant who has lived in the U.S. for decades.

Zamacona said there were 150 people in a holding cell. Desperate to lie down to sleep, he said he once took the spot of another man who got up to use the toilet.

And the water? Zamacona said he tried to drink from a sink but it “tasted like sewer.”

A lawsuit filed last week accuses the government of denying proper access to food, water and medical care, and coercing people to sign documents they don’t understand. Without that knowledge, and without private communication with lawyers, they have unknowingly relinquished their rights and faced deportation, the lawsuit alleges.

“This is not an issue of not getting a toilet or a Fiji water bottle,” attorney Alexa Van Brunt of the MacArthur Justice Center told the judge. “These are a set of dire conditions that when taken together paint a harrowing picture.”

Before testimony began, U.S. District Judge Robert Gettleman said the allegations were “disgusting.”

“To have to sleep on a floor next to an overflowing toilet — that’s obviously unconstitutional,” he said.

Attorney Jana Brady of the Justice Department acknowledged there are no beds at the Broadview building, just outside Chicago, because it was not intended to be a long-term detention site.

Authorities have “improved the operations” over the past few months, she said, adding there has been a “learning curve.”

“The conditions are not sufficiently serious,” Brady told the judge.

The building has been managed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for decades. But amid the Chicago-area crackdown, it has been used to process people for detention or deportation.

Greg Bovino, the Border Patrol commander who has led the Chicago immigration operation, said criticism was unfounded.

“I think they’re doing a great job out there,” he told the Associated Press during an interview this week.

Testifying with the help of a translator, Pablo Moreno Gonzalez, 56, said he was arrested last week while waiting to start work. Like Zamacona, he said he was placed in a cell with 150 other people, with no beds, blankets, toothbrush or toothpaste.

“It was just really bad. … It was just too much,” Moreno Gonzalez, crying, told the judge.

A third person, Claudia Carolina Pereira Guevara, testified from Honduras, separated from two children who remain in the U.S. She said she was held at Broadview for five days in October and recalled using a garbage bag to clear a clogged toilet.

“They gave us nothing that had to do with cleaning. Absolutely nothing,” Guevara said.

For months advocates have raised concerns about conditions at Broadview, which has drawn scrutiny from members of Congress, political candidates and activist groups. Lawyers and relatives of people held there have called it a de facto detention center, saying up to 200 people have been held at a time without access to legal counsel.

The Broadview center has also drawn demonstrations, leading to the arrests of numerous protesters. The demonstrations are at the center of a separate lawsuit from a coalition of news outlets and protesters who claim federal agents violated their First Amendment rights by repeatedly using tear gas and other weapons on them.

Fernando writes for the Associated Press. AP reporters Sophia Tareen in Chicago and Ed White in Detroit contributed to this report.

Universal Music Group said Wednesday it has reached licensing agreements with artificial intelligence music startup Udio, settling a lawsuit that had accused Udio of using copyrighted music to train its AI.

Users create music using Udio’s AI, which can compose original songs — including voices and instruments — from text prompts.

Udio has agreed with UMG to launch a new platform next year that is only trained on “authorized and licensed music,” and will let users customize, stream and share music.

“These new agreements with Udio demonstrate our commitment to do what’s right by our artists and songwriters, whether that means embracing new technologies, developing new business models, diversifying revenue streams or beyond,” Lucian Grainge, UMG’s chairman and chief executive, said in a statement.

Udio declined to disclose the financial terms of the settlement and licensing agreements. UMG did not immediately return a request for comment on the terms.

Artificial intelligence has brought new opportunities as well as challenges to the entertainment industry, as AI startups have been training their models on information on the internet, which entertainment companies say infringes on their copyrighted work.

In the music industry, music businesses have accused New York City-based Udio and other AI music startups of training on copyrighted music to generate new songs that are based on popular hits without compensation or permission.

UMG, Sony Music Entertainment, Warner Music Group and other music businesses sued Udio last year. In the lawsuit, Udio was accused of using hits like The Temptations’ “My Girl,” to create a similar melody called “Sunshine Melody.” UMG owns the copyright to “My Girl.”

“A comparison of one section of the Udio-generated file and ‘My Girl’ reflects a number of similarities, including a very similar melody, the same chords, and very similar backing vocals,” according to the lawsuit. “These similarities are further reflected in the side-by-side transcriptions of the musical scores for the Udio file and the original recording.”

Udio said on its website at the time that it stands by its technology and that its AI model learns from examples, similar to how students listen to music and study scores.

“The goal of model training is to develop an understanding of musical ideas — the basic building blocks of musical expression that are owned by no one,” Udio had said in a statement. “We are completely uninterested in reproducing content in our training set.”

On Wednesday, Udio’s CEO and co-founder, Andrew Sanchez, said he was thrilled at the opportunity to work with UMG “to redefine how AI empowers artists and fans.”

The collaboration is the first music licensing agreement that Udio has reached with a major music label.

“This moment brings to life everything we’ve been building toward — uniting AI and the music industry in a way that truly champions artists,” Sanchez said in a statement. “Together, we’re building the technological and business landscape that will fundamentally expand what’s possible in music creation and engagement.”

Udio said that artists can opt in to the new platform and will be compensated, but declined to go into the specifics or the artists involved.

Udio, launched in 2024, was co-founded by former Google DeepMind employees. Udio’s backers include music artist will.i.am, Instagram co-founder and Anthropic’s chief product officer Mike Krieger and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

Udio said millions of people have used Udio since it launched in 2024. Users can access the platform through its app or website. The company did not break out specifically how many downloads or website users it has.

Udio has had 128,000 app downloads in Apple’s App Store since its app was released in May, according to estimates from New York-based mobile analytics firm Appfigures.

On Thursday, UMG also announced a partnership with London-based Stability AI to develop music creation tools powered by AI for artists, producers and songwriters.

NEW YORK — President Trump’s request to add a documentary proof of citizenship requirement to the federal voter registration form cannot be enforced, a federal judge ruled Friday.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly in Washington, D.C., sided with Democratic and civil rights groups that sued the Trump administration over his executive order to overhaul U.S. elections.

She ruled that the proof-of-citizenship directive is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers, dealing a blow to the administration and its allies who have argued that such a mandate is necessary to restore public confidence that only Americans are voting in U.S. elections.

“Because our Constitution assigns responsibility for election regulation to the States and to Congress, this Court holds that the President lacks the authority to direct such changes,” Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion.

She further emphasized that on matters related to setting qualifications for voting and regulating federal election procedures “the Constitution assigns no direct role to the President in either domain.”

Kollar-Kotelly echoed comments she made when she granted a preliminary injunction over the issue.

The ruling grants the plaintiffs a partial summary judgment that prohibits the proof-of-citizenship requirement from going into effect. It says the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which has been considering adding the requirement to the federal voter form, is permanently barred from taking action to do so.

A message seeking comment from the White House was not immediately returned.

The lawsuit brought by the DNC and various civil rights groups will continue to play out to allow the judge to consider other challenges to Trump’s order. That includes a requirement that all mailed ballots be received, rather than just postmarked, by Election Day.

Other lawsuits against Trump’s election executive order are ongoing.

In early April, 19 Democratic state attorneys general asked a separate federal court to reject Trump’s executive order. Washington and Oregon, where virtually all voting is done with mailed ballots, followed with their own lawsuit against the order.

Swenson and Riccardi write for the Associated Press.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday indefinitely barred the Trump administration from firing federal employees during the government shutdown, saying that labor unions were likely to prevail on their claims that the cuts were arbitrary and politically motivated.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted a preliminary injunction that bars the firings while a lawsuit challenging them plays out. She previously issued a temporary restraining order against the job cuts that was set to expire Wednesday.

Illston, who was nominated by former President Clinton, has said she believes evidence will show the mass firings were illegal and in excess of authority.

Federal agencies are enjoined from issuing layoff notices or acting on notices issued since the government shut down Oct. 1. Illston said her order does not apply to notices sent before the shutdown.

The Republican administration has slashed jobs in education, health and other areas it says are favored by Democrats. The administration also said it will not tap roughly $5 billion in contingency funds to keep benefits through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly referred to as SNAP, flowing into November.

The American Federation of Government Employees and other labor unions sued to stop the “reductions in force” layoffs, saying the firings were an abuse of power designed to punish workers and pressure Congress.

“President Trump is using the government shutdown as a pretense to illegally fire thousands of federal workers — specifically those employees carrying out programs and policies that the administration finds objectionable,” AFGE National President Everett Kelley said in a statement thanking the court.

The White House referred a request for comment to the Office of Management and Budget, which did not immediately respond.

Lawyers for the government say the district court does not have the authority to hear personnel challenges and that President Trump has broad authority to reduce the federal workforce as he pledged to do during his campaign.

“The president was elected on this specific platform,” Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Velchik said. “The American people selected someone known above all else for his eloquence in communicating to employees that you’re fired; this is what they voted for.”

Trump starred on a long-running reality TV series called “The Apprentice” in which his signature catchphrase was telling candidates they were fired.

About 4,100 layoff notices have gone out since Oct. 10, some sent to work email addresses that furloughed employees are not allowed to check. Some personnel were called back to work, without pay, to issue layoff notices to others.

The lawsuit has expanded to include employees represented by additional labor unions, including the National Treasury Employees Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. All Cabinet departments and two dozen independent agencies are included in the lawsuit.

Democratic lawmakers are demanding that any deal to reopen the government address expiring health care subsidies that have made health insurance more affordable for millions of Americans. They also want any government funding bill to reverse the Medicaid cuts in Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill passed this summer.

Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson has refused to negotiate with Democrats until they agree to reopen the government.

This is now the second-longest shutdown in U.S. history. The longest occurred during Trump’s first term over his demands for funds to build the Mexico border wall. That one ended in 2019 after 35 days.

Har writes for the Associated Press.

Four years after the “Rust” movie shooting, New Mexico officials have moved Alec Baldwin’s lawsuit alleging malicious prosecution to federal court.

This week’s filing is the latest twist in the long legal saga after the October 2021 on-set death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins.

Baldwin, the 67-year-old star and a producer of the western film, had been facing a felony involuntary manslaughter charge for his role in Hutchins’ accidental shooting. But the judge overseeing Baldwin’s case abruptly dismissed the charge against him during his July 2024 trial after concluding that prosecutors withheld evidence that may have been helpful to his legal team.

Six months later, Baldwin sued New Mexico’s district attorney and special prosecutors, asserting malicious prosecution. The actor claimed he had been made a celebrity scapegoat because of the intense media pressure on local authorities to solve the high-profile case.

His lawsuit targeted New Mexico special prosecutor Kari T. Morrissey, 1st Judicial Dist. Atty. Mary Carmack-Altwies and Santa Fe County sheriff’s deputies, who led the investigation into Hutchins’ death.

The defendants have denied Baldwin’s allegations.

Baldwin’s wrongful prosecution suit was first filed in New Mexico court in Santa Fe.

On Tuesday, the defendants, including Morrissey, exercised their legal right to shift the case to federal court. The decision was made, in part, because “Mr. Baldwin brought federal civil rights claims in his lawsuit,” said Albuquerque attorney Luis Robles, who represents the defendants.

In addition, Baldwin does not live in New Mexico, where the case was filed.

Baldwin could object to the move and petition for it to be brought back to state court. On Wednesday, his team was not immediately available for comment.

A New Mexico judge had dismissed Baldwin’s malicious prosecution claims in July, citing 90 days of inactivity in the case. Baldwin’s legal team petitioned to get the case reinstated and the judge agreed to the request.

That prompted the defendants’ move to shift the case to the higher court.

During his Santa Fe trial last year, Baldwin’s lawyers had sought to turn the focus away from whether Baldwin pulled his gun’s trigger in the accidental shooting to where the lethal bullet came from.

Baldwin’s attorneys repeatedly accused law enforcement officers and prosecutors of bungling the case, including by allegedly hiding potential evidence — a batch of bullets that they said may have been related to the one that killed Hutchins.

RAPPER Nelly was accused of taking writer credit on song he didn’t write on his hit albums Country Grammar and Nellyville in a massive $10 million lawsuit. 

The U.S. Sun can exclusively reveal that the Hot In Herre artist was sued in federal court in May after a lawsuit was initially lobbed at him in a local Missouri court in 2024. 

Production company D2 filed an amended complaint against Nelly, 50, in August. 

The suit read “D2 is a production company started in a local community skating rink by twin brothers Darren Stith and David Stith.

“D2 was known for developing producers and talents and giving them an opportunity to further their art and careers.”

The brothers claimed: “They were directly responsible for finding, nurturing, and bringing to the public the music of Nelly and the group known as the ‘St. Lunatics.’”

Read More Nelly and Ashanti

beach babe

00s RnB legend, 45, strips off to swimsuit on holiday with rap star husband

St. Lunatics was made up of Nelly, Ali Jones, Torri Harper, Robert Kyjuan Cleveland  and Lavell Webb, aka City Spud.

In the suit, D2 alleged that they had a contract with both Nelly and the St. Lunatics, separately, but that they released the Ride Wit Me rapper from his contract with them in June of 2000, with a $75,000 payment.

D2 claimed that Nelly, in a secret agreement, claimed a writer credit on songs that weren’t written by him, and were actually written with the St. Lunatics, which made it so the artists were able to avoid paying D2 royalties on those songs.

“The Songs, which were included on the Country Grammar and Nellyville albums, sold over twenty million copies.

“D2 was never paid its portion of the revenues that were legally due to D2 under Lunatic Agreements with Harper, Cleveland, and Jones (and then the Publishing Agreement), but went to Nelly instead under the Secret Arrangement,” the suit went on to allege. 

Nelly and the St. Lunatics are being sued by D2 for more than $10,000,000 for breach of contract, fraud, conspiracy and breach of good faith and fair dealing. 

D2 is also suing Nelly specifically for tortious interference, which essentially means the rapper putrposely interfered with D2’s business. 

The suit said the Air Force One’s rapper “intentionally induced, and caused an interruption of D2’s contractual relationship with, and its business expectancy with, Harper, Cleveland, and Jones, by proposing, negotiating, entering into, and implementing the Secret Arrangement.

“Nelly knew or should have known that his actions would interfere with the Lunatic Agreements and cause D2 to lose revenue it was entitled to receive from the Songs pursuant to the Lunatic Agreements, and later, through the Publishing Agreement,” the suit claimed. 

In September, Nelly, along with Cleveland and Harper, attempted to get the suit dismissed. 

The case is ongoing. 

Earlier this week, Nelly’s wife, Ashanti, was seen sporting a bathing suit on a trip to Barbados just after her 45th birthday on October 13.

Nelly was not seen during the outing, though their child, Kareem Kenkaide ‘KK’ Haynes, was with her for the trip.

She and Nelly welcomed their son in July of last year. 

ON SCREEN

Recently, Nelly and Ashanti landed their own reality series after splitting up and later reuniting.

The pair dated on and off for 10 years after first getting together in 2003, but thought their 2013 breakup was final.

However, they surprised fans by getting back together a decade later. 

Wasting no time, Nelly and Ashanti tied the knot just three months after making their reunion public. 

The trailer for Nelly & Ashanti: We Belong Together was released ahead of the show’s premiere in June.

Fans quickly took to the comments on the first-look, with one saying, “This is the show I never knew I needed.”

Another wrote: “We’re all rooting for you, Nelly and Ashanti!”

FOOLED FOR LOVE

Dating app conman robbed me of £90k… it could happen to anyone

HOUSE THAT

Five home improvements you can get for FREE to help cut £2,000 off energy bills

A third added: “So here for these two being happy and in love.”

The show’s debut came just hours after The Sun exclusively revealed the truth behind rumors that Nelly had cheated on Ashanti.

Following last month’s lawsuit from the Federal Trade Commission, Ticketmaster is pledging to change its policies.

The FTC is suing Ticketmaster and its parent company, Live Nation Entertainment, for allegedly engaging in illegal ticket vendor practices. In a letter to lawmakers dated Oct. 17, Live Nation executive vice president Daniel Wall denies the FTC’s allegations that the company is helping scalpers and said that the company will implement new practices to benefit concertgoers.

As part of these new policy changes, the ticket vendor will no longer allow users purchasing tickets to have multiple accounts. All excess accounts will soon be canceled, and each reseller’s account must have a unique taxpayer ID.

According to the letter, the company also plans to shut down TradeDesk, its inventory management application. The controversial software is a tool that helps resellers track and price tickets across several marketplaces, often dealing with a large amount of tickets. The application has been previously accused of facilitating ticket harvesting, which Wall also denies, saying the platform doesn’t purchase tickets. He says competitors like StubHub and Vivid Seats use similar software.

Live Nation will be “removing TradeDesk’s concert ticket management functionality from the market” to help boost its reputation.

The recent FTC lawsuit isn’t the first legal battle the ticket-selling giant has faced. Last year, the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Live Nation, which suggested breaking up the company due to its alleged monopolistic practices.

Amid these lawsuits, fans have continued to complain about being unable to get their hands on tickets and having to pay much more than face value from resellers.

Founded in 1976, Ticketmaster has been the industry’s largest ticket provider since 1995, with around 80% of live concerts sold through the site. As of late, it has also acquired a growing share of the resale market. According to the FTC, consumers spent more than $82.6 billion buying tickets from the Beverly Hills-based company from 2019 to 2024.

The vendor also promises to implement new AI-powered tools to help verify identities, rid unauthorized users and police potentially fraudulent purchases.

LeBron James no longer has to worry about having to appear in small claims court over the hundreds of dollars a Lakers fan spent on tickets while under the impression that the superstar player was retiring at the end of the season.

Norwalk resident Andrew Garcia filed Monday with Los Angeles County Superior Court to dismiss without prejudice a claim he had filed earlier this month seeking to recoup his money after a big announcement teased by James on social media ended up having nothing to do with his NBA career, now going into its 23rd season, coming to an end.

Garcia said Monday he decided to drop the case after he accepted an offer from the PrizePicks fantasy sports app. The company has deposited promo funds in the amount of $865.66 — the full amount Garcia spent on two tickets to the Lakers’ game against the Cleveland Cavaliers on March 31, 2026 — into Garcia’s PrizePicks account, according to documentation viewed by The Times.

Garcia said will be able to cash out any winnings he receives off those transactions. In addition, he said, PrizePicks will be giving him tickets to a Lakers game of his choice and some other merchandise.

“I didn’t have to dismiss the case” in order to receive the deal from PrizePicks, Garcia said, “but I chose to, because I was like, you know, you guys are fully compensating me for my loss, and then some. There’s no reason for me to further pursue this, because then it would look like I’m double-dipping, you know?”

PrizePicks vice president of communications Elisa Richardson confirmed the deal in an email to The Times.

“We reached out to Andrew after seeing the news and finding out he was a PrizePicks player,” Richardson wrote. “We’re always looking for ways to surprise and delight our players.”

On Oct. 6, James posted on social media that he would announce “the decision of all decisions” the next day. The NBA’s all-time leading scorer also included a video clip teasing “The Second Decision,” a reference to 2010’s “The Decision,” in which James famously announced his intention to play for the Miami Heat.

Garcia wasn’t the only person who thought a retirement announcement was imminent — and he also wasn’t the only one who wanted to be sure to see James on his farewell tour. According to Victory Live, which analyzes verified ticket resale data across the secondary market, ticket sales for Lakers games jumped 25 times higher after James’ teaser post and the average price for those tickets increased from $280 to $399.

Ticket sales and prices returned to normal soon after it was revealed that “The Second Decision” was nothing more than a Hennessy ad. In his lawsuit, Garcia claimed James owed him the amount paid for the tickets because of “fraud, deception, misrepresentation, and any and all basis of legal recovery.”

The National Labor Relations Board has sued California to block a law that empowers a state agency to oversee some private-sector labor disputes and union elections.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 288 into law last month in response to the Trump administration’s hampering of federal regulators. It gives the state’s Public Employment Relations Board the ability to step in and oversee union elections, charges of workplace retaliation and other issues in the event the federal labor board is unable, or declines, to decide cases.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, argues the law usurps the NLRB’s authority “by attempting to regulate areas explicitly reserved for federal oversight.”

The lawsuit echos the NLRB’s challenge to a recent New York law that similarly seeks to expand the powers of its state labor board.

NLRB attorneys contend in the lawsuits that the laws create parallel regulatory systems that conflict with federal labor law.

The NLRB is tasked with safeguarding the right of private employees to unionize or organize in other ways to improve their working conditions.

Lawmakers in New York and California said they passed their bills to fill a gap, because the NLRB has been functionally paralyzed since January, when President Trump fired one of its Democratic board members. The unprecedented firing of that member, Gwynne Wilcox, left the board without the three-member quorum it needs to rule on cases.

Wilcox has challenged her firing in court, arguing that appointed board members can only be fired for “malfeasance or neglect of duty.” But her removal was upheld by the Supreme Court for now, until her case can make its way through lower courts.

Lorena Gonzalez, president of the California Federation of Labor Unions, last month called AB 288 “the most significant labor law reform in nearly a century.”

The California Public Employment Relations Board typically has authority only over public sector employees. But when the new law goes into effect on Jan. 1, workers in the private sector who are unable to get a timely response at the federal level can also petition the state board to take up their cases and enforce their rights.

The state’s labor board can choose to take on a case when the NLRB “has expressly or impliedly ceded jurisdiction,” according to language in the law. That includes when charges filed with the agency or an election certification have languished with a regional director for more than six months — or when the federal board doesn’t have a quorum of members or is otherwise hampered.

The NLRB’s paralysis has put hundreds of cases in limbo, with the agency currently lacking the ability to compel employers to bargain with their workers’ unions, or to stop unfair treatment on the job.

However, the agency’s acting general counsel — Trump appointee William Cowen — has said that only a fraction of cases require decisions from the typically five-member board and that the agency’s work has been largely unaffected, with regional offices continuing to process union elections and unfair labor practice charges.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — President Donald Trump refiled a dismissed federal lawsuit accusing The New York Times of defaming him during the 2024 election cycle and seeking $15 billion.

The president refiled the lawsuit on Thursday after U.S. District Court for Middle Florida Judge Steven Merryday in September dismissed the original filing.

The judge ruled the initial 85-page filing was too wordy and took too long to detail any formal complaints against the news outlet, The New York Times reported.

Merryday gave Trump 28 days to refile his lawsuit, which the president did on Thursday in the same federal court.

Trump’s revised filing is 40 pages long and accuses The Times’ reporters Peter Baker, Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig of writing “false, malicious and defamatory statements” against him in two news articles, according to NBC News.

Baler and Buettner also wrote a book titled “Lucky Loser: How Donald Trump Squandered His Father’s Fortune and Created the Illusion of Success.”

Trump’s legal team argues that he asked The Times to retract defamatory and false information, which its leadership refused, The Hill reported.

“Defendants rejected President Trump’s reasonable demands for retraction and instead doubled down and expanded on the malicious and defamatory falsehood,” the legal team says.

“These breaches of journalistic ethics are further proven by The Times’ enthusiastic aiding and abetting of the partisan effort to falsely link Russian interference to President Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election,” Trump’s filing says.

The claims of Russian interference on behalf of Trump “is well on its way to becoming one of the most profoundly disturbing criminal political scandals in American history,” Trump’s legal team argues.

Officials for The New York Times in a statement on Friday said the lawsuit lacks merit.

“Nothing has changed today,” the statement said. “This is merely an attempt to stifle independent reporting and generate [public relations] attention.”

The Times’ executive editor Joseph Kahn previously said the news outlet will not settle the case, which other news outlets have done to end similar cases filed by the president.

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?

OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma’s new public schools superintendent announced Wednesday he is rescinding a mandate from his predecessor that forced schools to incorporate the Bible into lesson plans for students.

Superintendent Lindel Fields said in a statement he has “no plans to distribute Bibles or a Biblical character education curriculum in classrooms.” The directive last year from former Superintendent Ryan Walters drew immediate condemnation from civil rights groups and prompted a lawsuit from a group of parents, teachers and religious leaders that is pending before the Oklahoma Supreme Court. It was to have applied to students in grades 5 through 12.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt appointed Fields to the superintendent’s post after Walters resigned last month to take a job in the private sector.

Jacki Phelps, an attorney for the Oklahoma State Department of Education, said she intends to notify the court of the agency’s plan to rescind the mandate and seek a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

Many schools districts across the state had decided not to comply with the Bible mandate.

A spokeswoman for the state education department, Tara Thompson, said Fields believes the decision on whether the Bible should be incorporated into classroom instruction is one best left up to individual districts and that spending money on Bibles is not the best use of taxpayer resources.

Walters in March had announced plans to team up with country music singer Lee Greenwood seeking donations to get Bibles into classrooms after a legislative panel rejected his $3 million request to fund the effort. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the Bible mandate did not immediately comment.

Walters, a far-right Republican, made fighting “woke ideology”, banning certain books from school libraries and getting rid of “radical leftists” who he claims were indoctrinating children in classrooms a focal point of his administration. Since his election in 2020, he imposed a number of mandates on public schools and worked to develop new social studies standards for K-12 public school students that included teaching about conspiracy theories related to the 2020 presidential election. Those standards have been put on hold while a lawsuit challenging them moves forward.

Thompson said the agency plans to review all of Walters’ mandates, including a requirement that applicants from teacher jobs coming from California and New York take an ideology exam, to determine if those may also be rescinded.

“We need to review all of those mandates and provide clarity to schools moving forward,” she said.

Murphy writes for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gun rights organizations filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging a new California law that bans certain types of Glock-style semiautomatic firearms.

The law, signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom last week, prohibits the sale of semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” — a feature that allows gun owners to attach a device, commonly called a switch, that boosts the weapon’s firepower and converts it into a machine gun capable of spraying dozens of bullets in a fraction of a second.

“Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights,” John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement. “They are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges the law violates the 2nd Amendment. Plaintiffs include the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation, as well as some individuals and smaller businesses.

The legal action alleges that California’s new law essentially bans the sale of certain Glock-brand handguns and others with similar features that allow modification by owners.

“A law that bans the sale of — and correspondingly prevents citizens from acquiring — a weapon in common use violates the Second Amendment,” the lawsuit states. “Semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way. The Supreme Court has already held that handguns are in common use and cannot be banned.”

The lawsuit states the only justification for banning a firearm is when the weapon is “dangerous and unusual” and argues that semiautomatic pistols are neither.

“They are also unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes,” the lawsuit states. “In fact, they are among the most popular handguns in the nation.”

Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who introduced Assembly Bill 1127, said his bill was intended to help protect communities from gun violence.

“Automatic weapons are exceptionally lethal and capable of firing hundreds of rounds per minute; they are illegal in California,” he told the Senate Public Safety Committee in July. “Unfortunately, some semiautomatic firearms feature a dangerous design element allowing them to be converted to automatic weapons through the attachment of an easy-to-use device known as a switch.”

Over the last few years, handguns retrofitted with switches were used in several prominent shootings in California, including the 2022 mass shooting in downtown Sacramento that left six people dead and a dozen injured.

Machine gun conversion switches are illegal in the United States and are mostly manufactured overseas. They also can be built at home using 3D printers. Instructions for installing one on a firearm can be found online and require little to no technical expertise.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives reported a 570% increase in the number of conversion devices collected by police departments between 2017 and 2021, according to the Associated Press.

“Days of Our Lives” actor Arianne Zucker has reached a settlement with the producers of the show after her 2024 lawsuit alleging sexual harassment and discrimination on the set of the soap opera.

Notice of the settlement was filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. No further details about the settlement were included. Zucker’s attorney could not be immediately reached for comment.

Zucker had starred on “Days of Our Lives” since 1998, playing the character Nicole Walker. In her February 2024 lawsuit, she alleged that now-former executive producer Albert Alarr subjected her and other employees to “severe and pervasive harassment and discrimination, including sexual harassment, based upon their female gender.”

Zucker claimed that Alarr would grab and hug her, “purposely pushing her breasts onto his chest” while moaning sexually, according to the lawsuit. She also alleged that he would make “sexually charged comments” to her.

“Our client continues to deny the allegations set forth in the complaint,” Alarr’s attorney, Robert Barta, said in a statement. “However, in order to bring the litigation to the end, he has agreed to settle. This decision was made solely to end the dispute and move forward.”

Zucker’s lawsuit also named Corday Productions, which oversees the show, and its owner, Ken Corday, as defendants in the lawsuit, alleging retaliation. Zucker alleged that her pay was decreased and her travel stipend revoked after she voiced concerns. In June 2023, she said her character was written off the show after 20 years.

Several months later, Corday Productions offered to renew Zucker’s contract but allegedly did not negotiate with her representatives for higher pay, the lawsuit said.

Attorneys for Corday and Corday Productions did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Corday Productions previously told The Times in a statement that Zucker’s claims “are without merit” and that she was offered a pay increase upon an offer to renew her contract. The company said at the time that complaints about Alarr’s on-set behavior were “promptly investigated” and the company “fully cooperated with the impartial investigation and subsequently terminated Mr. Alarr.”

“Days of Our Lives” aired on Comcast-owned NBC from Nov. 8, 1965, to Sept. 9, 2022, before moving to the Comcast streaming platform Peacock in 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

BATON ROUGE, La. — The immigration detainees sent to a notorious Louisiana prison last month are being punished for crimes for which they have already served time, the American Civil Liberties Union said Monday in a lawsuit challenging the government’s decision to hold what it calls the “worst of the worst” there.

The lawsuit accuses President Trump’s administration of selecting the former slave plantation known as Angola for its “uniquely horrifying history” and intentionally subjecting immigrant detainees to inhumane conditions — including foul water and lacking basic necessities — in violation of the Double Jeopardy clause, which protects people from being punished twice for the same crime.

The ACLU also alleges some immigrants detained at the newly opened “Louisiana Lockup” should be released because the government failed to deport them within six months of a removal order. The lawsuit cites a 2001 Supreme Court ruling raised in several recent immigration cases, including that of the Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, that says immigration detention should be “nonpunitive.”

“The anti-immigrant campaign under the guise of ‘Making America Safe Again’ does not remotely outweigh or justify indefinite detention in ‘America’s Bloodiest Prison’ without any of the rights afforded to criminal defendants,” ACLU attorneys argue in a petition reviewed by The Associated Press.

The AP sent requests for comment to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry.

The lawsuit comes a month after state and federal authorities gathered at the sprawling Louisiana State Penitentiary to announce that the previously shuttered prison complex had been refurbished to house up to 400 immigrant detainees that officials said would include some of the most violent in ICE custody.

The complex had been nicknamed “the dungeon” because it previously held inmates in solitary cells for more than 23 hours a day.

ICE repurposed the facility amid an ongoing legal battle over an immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz,” and as Trump continues his large-scale attempt to remove millions of people suspected of entering the country illegally. The federal government has been racing to to expand its deportation infrastructure and, with state allies, has announced other new facilities, including what it calls the “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana and the “Cornhusker Clink” in Nebraska. ICE is seeking to detain 100,000 people under a $45 billion expansion Trump signed into law in July.

At Angola last month, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem told reporters the “legendary” maximum security prison, the largest in the nation, had been chosen to house a new ICE facility to encourage people in the U.S. illegally to self-deport. “This facility will hold the most dangerous of criminals,” she said.

Authorities said the immigration detainees would be isolated from Angola’s thousands of civil prisoners, many of whom are serving life sentences for violent offenses.

“I know you all in the media will attempt to have a field day with this facility, and you will try to find everything wrong with our operation in an effort to make those who broke the law in some of the most violent ways victims,” Landry, a Republican, said during a news conference last month.

“If you don’t think that they belong in somewhere like this, you’ve got a problem.”

The ACLU lawsuit says detainees at “Louisiana Lockup” already were “forced to go on hunger strike” to “demand basic necessities such as medical care, toilet paper, hygiene products and clean drinking water.” Detainees have described a long-neglected facility that was not yet prepared to house them, saying they are contending with mold, dust and ”black” water coming out of showers, court records show.

Federal and state officials have said those claims are part of a “false narrative” created by the media, and that the hunger strike only occurred after inaccurate reporting.

The lawsuit was filed in Baton Rouge federal court on behalf of Oscar Hernandez Amaya, a 34-year-old Honduran man who has been in ICE custody for two years. He was transferred to “Louisiana Lockup” last month from an ICE detention center in Pennsylvania.

Amaya fled Honduras two decades ago after refusing the violent MS-13 gang’s admonition “to torture and kill another human being,” the lawsuit alleges. The gang had recruited him at age 12, court documents say.

Amaya came to the United States, where he worked “without incident” until 2016. He was arrested that year and later convicted of attempted aggravated assault and sentenced to more than four years in prison. He was released on good-time credits after about two years and then transferred to ICE custody.

An immigration judge this year awarded Amaya “Convention Against Torture” protection from being returned to Honduras, the lawsuit says, but the U.S. government has failed to deport him to another country.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that immigration detention cannot be used for punitive purposes,” Nora Ahmed, the ACLU of Louisiana’s legal director, told AP. “You cannot serve time for a crime in immigration detention.”

Mustian and Cline write for the Associated Press. Mustian reported from New York.

ORLANDO, Fla. — U.S. government lawyers say that detainees at the immigration detention center in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz” probably include people who have never been in removal proceedings, which is a direct contradiction of what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has been saying since it opened in July.

Attorneys for the U.S. Department of Justice made that admission Thursday in a court filing arguing that the detainees at the facility in the Everglades wilderness don’t have enough in common to be certified as a class in a lawsuit over whether they’re getting proper access to attorneys.

A removal proceeding is a legal process initiated by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to determine if someone should be deported from the United States.

The Justice Department attorneys wrote that the detainees at the Everglades facility have too many immigration statuses to be considered a class.

“The proposed class includes all detainees at Alligator Alcatraz, a facility that houses detainees in all stages of immigration processing — presumably including those who have never been in removal proceedings, those who will be placed into removal proceedings, those who are already subject to final orders of removal, those subject to expedited removal, and those detained for the purpose of facilitation removal from the United States pursuant to a final order of removal,” they wrote.

Since the facility opened, DeSantis has been saying publicly that each detainee has gone through the process of determining that they can’t legally be in the United States.

During a July 25 news conference outside the detention center, DeSantis said, “Everybody here is already on a final removal order.”

“They have been ordered to be removed from the country,” he added.

At a July 29 speech before a conference of the Florida Sheriffs Assn., the Republican governor said, “The people that are going to the Alligator Alcatraz are illegally in the country. They’ve all already been given a final order of removal.”

He added, “So, if you have an order to be removed, what is the possible objection to the federal government enforcing that removal order?”

DeSantis’ press office didn’t respond Monday morning to an email seeking comment.

The court filing by the Justice Department attorneys was made in a lawsuit in which civil rights groups allege the facility’s detainees have been denied proper access to attorneys in violation of their constitutional rights. The civil rights groups on Thursday asked a federal judge in Fort Myers, Fla., for a preliminary injunction that would establish stronger protections for detainees to meet with attorneys privately and share documents confidentially.

The court case is one of three lawsuits filed by environmental and civil rights groups over the detention center, which was hastily built this summer by the state of Florida and operated by private contractors and state agencies.

A federal judge in Miami ordered in August that the facility must wind down operations within two months, agreeing with environmental groups that the remote airstrip site wasn’t given a proper environmental review before it was converted into an immigration detention center. But operations continued after the judge’s preliminary injunction was put on hold in early September by an appellate court panel. At one point, the facility held more than 900 detainees, but most of them were transferred after the initial injunction. It wasn’t clear on Monday how many detainees were at the center, which was built to hold 3,000 people.

President Trump toured the facility in July and suggested it could be a model for future lockups nationwide as his administration pushes to expand the infrastructure needed to increase deportations. Federal officials on Friday confirmed that Florida has been approved for a $608-million reimbursement for the costs of building and running the immigration detention center.

Schneider writes for the Associated Press.