lawsuit

MIAMI — Dodgers owner Mark Walter and multiple insurance companies he owns have been sued, alleging they failed to disclose an ongoing federal probe to customers while directing policyholders’ money into Walter’s other companies.

The lawsuit lists Walter, Delaware Life Insurance Co., Clear Spring Life and Annuity, TWG Global Holdings and Walter’s Guggenheim Partners investment firm as defendants.

Ira Rosner, a 67-year-old Florida man, brought the class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Miami on Wednesday. He purchased a policy from Delaware Life in April and he had until late May to withdraw his money without penalty. However, the company did not disclose the investigation to him until June,

Rosner is seeking a jury trial in the lawsuit that seeks damages for negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and aiding and abetting fraud.

TWG Global didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Walter has been under investigation since last year by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and the Securities and Exchange Commission following a whistleblower complaint regarding alleged misrepresented loans made between companies within his business portfolio.

TWG Global Holdings is the holding company through which Walter controls Delaware Life, Clear Spring Life and Annuity Co. and his stake in Guggenheim Partners. TWG Global denied any wrongdoing involving the probe in a statement last month.

Walter and co-owner Todd Boehly sold their stakes in English Premier League club Chelsea this week. Last month, Walter agreed to sell the Lakers in a surprise move less than a year after buying the NBA franchise from the Buss family. The deal is under review by the league.

The Dodgers have been adamant that Walter has no plans to sell the baseball team.

SACRAMENTO — The California Primary Care Assn. and five clinics filed a civil lawsuit in federal court Friday accusing SEIU-United Healthcare Workers West and its president, Dave Regan, of racketeering and using ballot initiatives to “shake down” community health centers.

The association alleges that Regan and his union orchestrated a “multi-year campaign of coercion, threats, and economic pressure” to “extort” what the lawsuit describes as “valuable property rights” and “labor-organizing terms” from CPCA and the health centers the association represents in California, according to a copy of the complaint obtained by The Times.

The suit says Regan pushed Proposition 44, which if approved by voters in November will restrict spending at nonprofit community health clinics, as political leverage against the industry. Regan then offered to call off the measure if CPCA agreed to support the union’s efforts to unionize 25,000 industry workers, the lawsuit states.

In the complaint, CPCA estimates that 25,000 new union members would generate $2.37 million in monthly revenue from dues paid to UHW.

“This is about Dave Regan and UHW in particular adopting a strategy to create harmful legislation and harmful ballot initiatives to force people to the table to negotiate favorable agreements that will benefit them financially and then when those agreements don’t go through, they allow these initiatives to go through to create punishment for the organizations that can’t come to terms, and then they keep coming back, over and over and over again,” said Brandon Thornock, chief executive of plaintiff Shasta Community Health, echoing claims in the lawsuit.

“It’s a complete waste of resources and it’s amoral.”

A spokesperson for UHW did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. In an interview in July, Regan denied asking the clinics to support his unionization efforts in exchange for dropping Proposition 44.

“We wanted to construct a relationship with the clinic association that prioritized appropriate funding of the community clinics in California, including restoring the healthcare cuts that were introduced by the ‘One Big [Beautiful] Bill,’” Regan said previously. “It was a strategic relationship where we’re working in a mutually cooperative way to properly fund the healthcare system to respect workers, and they were not interested in that.”

Regan is a powerful figure in California politics who has a history of using the ballot box to try to force the healthcare industry to unionize. The union leader has come under scrutiny this year over claims about his extreme political tactics, intimidating behavior toward and threats against women, and an allegation of assault more than 15 years ago, all of which he denies.

Regan is also the architect of California’s billionaire tax, a proposal on the November ballot to apply a one-time 5% tax on the net worth of billionaires that has splintered labor and divided Democrats.

The CPCA lawsuit, in the federal court in the Eastern District of California, alleges that Regan’s political tactics are not designed to win initiatives, “but to subjugate and terrify.”

The union, the lawsuit states, has filed dozens of punitive ballot measures in California “targeting hospitals and dialysis providers with the implied threat or directly stated purpose of coercing health care providers into acquiescing to their union organizing or bargaining demands.” UHW has spent over $216 million, the suit says, on measures to “harm patients, destroy services, and drive providers out of business.” The vast majority of the UHW-backed measures have been withdrawn, usually after the industry agrees to concessions, the suit states.

“No other singular entity or individual has engaged in such widespread corruption of California’s initiative process,” the suit states.

Proposition 44 requires that community clinics spend 90% of revenue on patient services, which Regan has said ensures that money is aligned with the mission of the health centers.

CPCA and health centers say restricting the funding would dramatically reduce money for other essential services and leave some clinics at risk of closing their doors.

The CPCA lawsuit alleges that Regan’s demands on Proposition 44 were sent in an email in January from a legislative staff member on behalf of the union. The offer, presented as a joint submission from UHW and two union affiliates, included a requirement that community health centers “hold elections for at least 5,000 employees in each of five years the agreement would be in effect, resulting in elections for 25,000 employees over the five-year period.”

The complaint says the email also disclosed that UHW said it would drop the initiative if CPCA agreed to the terms.

“The e-mail unambiguously shows that UHW and the Union Affiliates — bullied and instructed by Regan — agreed and intended to participate in an endeavor to abuse the ballot initiative process to extract valuable labor concessions from CPCA and CHCs, in violation of federal and state law,” the complaint states.

Negotiations to withdraw the measure fell apart on June 24, the day before the deadline to rescind initiatives from the statewide ballot.

The lawsuit alleges that the union offered a new deal that same day.

“UHW would withdraw the Clinic Penalty Initiative if, in exchange, CPCA reversed its opposition to UHW’s billionaires’ wealth tax initiative and took the funds it raised to oppose the Clinic Penalty Initiative and instead used that money to assist UHW in passing its wealth tax,” the lawsuit alleges. “The next morning, Regan, through an intermediary, offered the same ‘deal.’ CPCA refused to entertain such discussions.”

The lawsuit states that California’s community health centers served 6.7 million people in 2025 and 67% are enrolled in Medi-Cal, state subsidized healthcare coverage for low-income Californians. In many rural areas, health centers are sometimes the only source of primary care.

Thornock said Shasta Community Health has patients who travel more than an hour to get care and provides a program that transports them to health facilities. Under Proposition 44, the program would not be considered patient services.

“It was designed to create for us what becomes an existential crisis in many cases,” he said.

The CPCA lawsuit states that Regan and the union began seeking to extort unionization from nonprofit hospitals through ballot measures in 2011 and used the same strategy to try to grow their membership among dialysis center workers beginning in 2017. In early 2022, they began targeting CPCA and health centers through legislation, the lawsuit stated.

The suit also alleges that Regan and UHW are in violation of a California law that prohibits a proponent of a ballot initiative from seeking, soliciting, bargaining for, or obtaining any money or a thing of value from any person or entity for abandoning or preventing an initiative from moving forward.

A week before the lawsuit became public, The Times reported that independent investigators hired by SEIU found in a report that Regan had tried to “extort” an SEIU state council endorsement of the billionaire tax from other California union leaders. An outside law firm that investigated internal charges against Regan found that he suggested to David Huerta, then president of SEIU California, that the state council could be investigated for “governance issues” if the council did not endorse the billionaire tax on the November ballot. The state council later voted to remain neutral on the measure.

The law firm’s investigation, which was paid for by Service Employees International Union, substantiated an allegation that Regan threatened Tia Orr, executive director of SEIU California, over the council’s position on the ballot measure. The SEIU probe found an allegation that Regan also assaulted one of Orr’s predecessors in the job, Courtni Pugh, in 2009, to be credible.

A second investigation conducted by an outside law firm hired by SEIU California found sufficient evidence to substantiate a complaint that Regan bullied Jessica Bartholow, the council’s government relations director.

In interviews with investigators hired by the union and with The Times, Regan admitted to swearing at a staff member for SEIU California and adamantly denied bullying, threatening and assaulting women or seeking to force the state council to back his measure.

Regan remains in his job and alleges that he’s being unfairly targeted over his advocacy for the billionaire tax. SEIU, the national umbrella organization that represents local SEIU affiliates, has not taken any disciplinary action against him while an internal administrative review process moves forward.

Sources involved in negotiations over the billionaire tax said Regan also asked for concessions to grow his union in exchange for rescinding the measure from the ballot this year, which The Times previously reported.

Regan’s list of demands included union contracts with two private hospitals and a health clinic, an organizing neutrality agreement with healthcare clinics statewide, recognition of his union from dialysis clinics and for billionaires to remove measures they launched in response to his tax, according to two sources familiar with the talks who were granted anonymity to share details of the discussions.

The union leader called the allegation “categorically false” and denied that he asked for concessions for his union in exchange for removing the billionaire tax from the ballot.

MARFA, Texas — Landowners, ranchers and business owners in the Big Bend region of Texas along with a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the region’s landscape and heritage are suing to stop the Trump administration’s plans to build a wall and other border infrastructure through the remote section of the state.

The lawsuit, filed by Conserve Big Bend and with the support of dozens of landowners, comes as the administration is ramping up a $46-billion effort to line the roughly 2,000-mile southern border with a collection of 30-foot steel bollard walls, vehicle barriers and technology intended to keep out smugglers and migrants.

In Texas, the effort has run up against numerous lawsuits and bipartisan opposition from sheriffs, elected officials, tour guides, environmental groups and landowners.

Officials backing the wall “were woefully unprepared for the hornet’s nest they stirred up because they had no idea how much we love this place,” said David Keller, an archaeologist and historian who specializes in the Big Bend and lives in the region.

“For us, the Big Bend is not an empty place on the map,” he said. “It is our home.”

As part of its wall-building efforts, the administration has waived numerous regulations and statutes designed to protect the environment, archaeology or wildlife, on the basis that there’s an urgent need to protect the border in what Homeland Security has called areas of “high illegal entry.”

But in the lawsuit announced Monday, the plaintiffs argue that when it comes to the Big Bend region, that’s not an accurate description. They’ve cited historical statistics issued by Customs and Border Protection showing how few people cross the border in Big Bend compared with other areas along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Big Bend has about 500 miles of border with Mexico — roughly one quarter of the length of the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. But the region only accounted for about 1% of arrests, according to the lawsuit’s stats.

The plaintiffs are arguing that the Department of Homeland Security is misusing powers from Congress that allow the secretary broad authority to waive regulations in order to build border walls or other infrastructure in areas where there are large numbers of people trying to cross into the country illegally.

“That determination is legally and factually unsound and unsupported,” the plaintiffs wrote.

The lawsuit filed Monday is the latest in efforts to slow or stop the administration’s plans in Texas and elsewhere.

The biggest outcry has come over Customs and Border Protection’s plans for the Big Bend National Park, which sits in a far southwestern corner of Texas where the Rio Grande separates the U.S. from Mexico.

The park’s remote and rugged location, its steep limestone canyon walls and crystal clear starry night views attract visitors from around the world. The government has said in court hearings that no final plans have been decided for what will be built in the park but plans made public so far have included building a new road, installing detection technology and barriers to stop vehicles from crossing the border.

When bulldozers were spotted clearing land in the park in August, people across the state were outraged. CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott temporarily paused construction-related activity in the park but many activists and residents would like to see even more changes to the administration’s plans in the broader Big Bend region.

Native American groups have argued that the construction could inhibit their ability to practice their faith and is damaging important religious sites while environmentalists worry the wall will cause flooding or keep animals from migrating.

Landowners who’ve lived and worked along the Rio Grande for years have questioned how they’ll feed livestock or water their crops if they can’t access the river.

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

The sprawling snack-food factory in upstate New York appeared to be closed when a small army of immigration officers arrived after 9 a.m. Following a brief discussion of whether to force their way inside, a manager opened the front door.

Over the next several hours, body cameras were running as federal authorities from several agencies made 57 arrests, debated which files to seize and when to release employees who were U.S. citizens. They also searched for anyone in hiding.

The footage from September 2025 shows the raid at the Nutrition Bar Confectioners plant in Cato, N.Y., town of 2,500 people east of Syracuse, and offers a rare glimpse inside a workplace immigration sweep. The Associated Press analyzed the video, which was part of a lawsuit filed Thursday that accuses authorities of overstepping their search warrants.

The officers ordered a manager to announce their presence over loudspeakers while they entered the building and caught employees on the production line, in the warehouse and a few in the bathroom. Officers covered all exits while others swept the interior, including homing in on locked doors.

Male officers encountered a locked bathroom and began shouting instructions in broken Spanish at female employees through the door, demanding that they come out. After about 10 seconds, officers broke through the door.

One woman was outside of a stall and another in the stall. A male officer peered through a locked stall door, and his body cam video revealed a woman sitting on the toilet.

“Miss, pull up your pants. Come out of the bathroom,” he told her.

“You have to wait. I can’t come out like this, naked!” she replied.

Investigators interviewed the general manager and said they were looking into hiring practices and potential fraudulent documents. Inside and outside the building, officers checked every office, storage room and hallway for anyone who was hiding.

Employees were lined up and separated into groups of U.S. citizens and potential noncitizens. Officers asked for their immigration status, requested documents and posed questions about their entry into the U.S. Some employees were pregnant.

Some were parents and expressed concern for their children at home. Others said they would not answer questions without first speaking to their attorneys, and officers told them they would be arrested.

One employee refused to answer questions. “Will you let me talk to my attorney?” she asked the officer. He raised his voice and continued asking about her immigration status.

U.S. citizens were asked for personal information, including their phone numbers and addresses before they were allowed to leave.

A Border Patrol agent who spoke to another official wearing a camera used disparaging language about children from other countries when recounting his experience working at a South Texas immigrant detention center. He said President Biden’s administration allowed millions of people to enter the United States from countries where children are treated “differently” than they are by American parents.

“In other countries, kids are more of a commodity or it’s more of like, I’m going to put it in those terms. It’s more like an animal, right? It’s not prized the way that we do it,” he said.

“There’s countries like Brazil and other places where they’re literal street rats at a very young age who commit crimes, and then they come here. I don’t know if you have kids, but they’ll eat our kids for breakfast.”

The Homeland Security Department said Friday that it executed a criminal search warrant at the plant as part of an investigation that is still open. Its statement did not address the contents of the video or the merits of the lawsuit.

Not all officers wore body cameras, but those who did often indicated to other officers that they were recording before they initiated a conversation.

ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations unit is responsible for workplace raids, which have been relatively few and low-key compared with ICE’s removal unit, which arrests people in the street, at homes and in public and also manages detention centers. The Trump administration’s largest workplace raid was last year at a Hyundai electric vehicle plant in Georgia. It resulted in nearly 500 arrests and fueled diplomatic tension with South Korea.

The lawsuit against Homeland Security claims federal officers exceeded the authority of their warrants and violated workers’ constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure.

“There were no arrest warrants,” said Perry Grossman, a supervising attorney at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit with the Worker Justice Center of New York.

“There was no suspicion that individual workers had committed crimes. And they seized easily 100 people for nonconsensual questioning. They arrested 57. Out of those 57 people, criminal charges were brought against only five. And the most serious charge was unlawful reentry.”

Grossman said one employee got her charges dismissed after contending in a lawsuit that her 4th Amendment rights were violated. He said he was not aware of any charges or indictments against the employers.

Officers detained about 60 people and deported some employees, including two plaintiffs who are part of Thursday’s lawsuit. One plaintiff has since been allowed to reenter the country. Attorneys for the second deported plaintiff are seeking his return.

Law enforcement agencies have come under criticism for not using body cameras and for refusing to release footage when they do. ICE, in particular, has been scrutinized after a $75-billion infusion from Congress and an expanding street presence that has led to three fatal shootings this year.

ICE’s own rules on releasing video are unclear. Its policy calls for expedited release of footage after a serious injury or death in custody when doing so is determined to be in the “ best interests of the agency.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly promised to equip ICE field agents with body cameras, as required by Congress. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said last week that the agency was “on track” to do so by the end of September.

Gonzalez and Vancleave write for the Associated Press.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pending defamation case against Fox News could go to trial in early 2028, around the same time the governor could be running a 2028 campaign for president.

Newsom sued the news network last year over its coverage of a phone call that took place between the governor and President Trump in June 2025, as unrest simmered over federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. The governor accused the news outlet of intentionally manipulating its coverage to give the appearance that he lied about the call.

Despite an on-air apology from Fox News host Jesse Watters and attempts from the network to have the lawsuit thrown out, a Delaware Superior Court judge late last month set a trial date for March 6, 2028. Newsom filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., are incorporated.

Newsom’s final term in office ends in early January and he is considering a run for president. The lawsuit seeks $787 million in damages, the same amount the network paid to settle a defamation suit brought by voting machine company Dominion. The company accused Fox News of airing false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Fox News sought to have the case dismissed and Newsom ordered to pay attorneys’ fees. Judge Sean P. Lugg denied both motions this year, a ruling upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

“We will continue to vigorously defend against Governor Newsom’s meritless claims, which directly implicate core First Amendment protections for free speech, political commentary and a free press,” the network said in a statement to The Times.

“No media empire, no matter how rich and powerful, should get to lie to the American people with impunity,” said Michael Teter, the attorney representing Newsom in the case. “Governor Newsom is holding Fox accountable — and looks forward to proving this case in court. The truth matters.”

The case stems from a phone call between Trump and Newsom in early June 2025 as unrest brewed in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids and hours before the president took control of state National Guard troops, ordering them to protect federal buildings and immigration agents.

Newsom’s lawsuit accuses Fox hosts Watters and John Roberts, along with two senior news staffers, of misrepresenting Trump’s statements and asserting that Newsom lied about whether the call had happened.

The governor had previously publicly spoken about a late-night phone call he had with Trump on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. He said that the National Guard was never discussed during that call and that the two did not speak about the immigration raids and protests again.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said.

Newsom disputed Trump’s timeline, writing on social media, “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”

Roberts then said on social media and on air that Trump sent him evidence that the call took place. Newsom’s lawsuit accused Roberts of leaving out key details about the time of the call.

Roberts “did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom ‘a day ago.’ Nor did Mr. Roberts note that June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not ‘a day ago’ when one is speaking on June 10,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accused Watters’ show of playing a clip of Trump’s remarks that was edited to remove the president’s reference to “a day ago.”

“Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call,” Watters said after showing the clip. “He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

A caption at the bottom of the screen during the report read, “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Weeks later, Watters acknowledged the mistake and apologized, saying Newsom “wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear.”

Newsom declined to drop the suit and in court documents demanded a jury trial.

Getting a trial date doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will take place, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

Fox’s “motion to dismiss was denied. That means the case is continuing,” she said. “But what’s also happening throughout all of this is the sides are probably talking about some sort of settlement.”

The case now enters the discovery phase, where each side collects evidence to build their case.

Court records show Fox News lawyers last month sent subpoenas to Newsom’s political action committee and several top advisors, including his chief of staff, Nathan Barankin; communications director Bob Salladay; legal affairs secretary David Sapp; and political consultants Ace Smith, Lindsey Cobia, Jason Elliott and Nathan Click.

The subpoenas ordered them to produce documents related to the network’s coverage of Newsom, the phone call with Trump and the governor’s response strategy.

If a trial does happen, Levinson said, the timing could either help or hurt Newsom’s potential presidential campaign.

“He can use it as a talking point and say, ‘I don’t leave any stone unturned. I’m seeking to vindicate my reputation. I believe in the truth, and the other side does not believe in the truth. That’s why I’m bringing this case.’ So, he can use it as a part of his stump,” she said.

But if the trial proceeds and Newsom believes it would take time away from his campaign, he could ask for it to be moved to a different date.

“Trial dates get changed all the time for much less,” Levinson said.

Sept. 8, 2026 9:01 AM PT

WASHINGTON — Work on the White House North Portico appears to be nearing completion before Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit to the United States in late September.

Scaffolding was being taken down Tuesday after workers over Labor Day weekend removed a shroud that had obscured the work. The Executive Mansion’s front columns had been covered since July. The work, ordered by President Trump, began in June.

The portico was first completed in 1830 during Andrew Jackson’s presidency. Administration officials said previously that stonework and plaster on the structure were being refurbished because of routine damage from age and weather exposure.

Trump has said he noticed it was in “deplorable condition” before insisting on repairs. The work is part of the president’s sweeping overhaul of the White House and other federal property in the nation’s capital — with most of his more ambitious moves drawing lawsuits and criticism from preservationists.

Trump said last week that workers finished construction of a helipad on the South Lawn.

His signature project, a White House ballroom and underground bunker, continues as legal fights play out. Multiple lawsuits were filed after Trump demolished the East Wing before going through the usual regulatory steps for major work on historic federal buildings in Washington. The massive project will add more square footage than what the existing White House footprint comprises.

That means Trump must host Xi’s state dinner, scheduled for Sept. 24, in existing spaces and in a construction zone — a circumstance that will afford the president a new opportunity to extol his ballroom project.

Barrow and Martin write for the Associated Press. Barrow reported from Atlanta.

LOS ANGELES: Just days before two teenagers carried out a mass shooting at a San Diego mosque, federal law enforcement officials warned the parents of one of the shooters that their son was making concerning comments about school shootings on the dark web, according to new details included in a recently filed lawsuit.

The mother of Caleb Vazquez alleges in her lawsuit that Park Mental Health Treatment of San Diego failed to intervene despite signs that her 18-year-old son posed an imminent threat to himself and others. Vazquez was living there and receiving treatment for a range of mental health conditions, including depression and psychotic episodes, the lawsuit says. The court filings follow a number of high-profile convictions of guardians who provided teenagers with weapons that were later used in mass shootings.

The FBI called Vazquez’s mother on the evening of May 14, and she said she immediately left a message with the treatment facility to notify its staff, according to the lawsuit, filed in a San Diego court on Aug. 31. Vazquez’s mother again shared the FBI’s warnings with her son’s therapist on May 15 and with a program director later that night.

On May 18, the morning of the shooting, employees at the facility contacted Vazquez’s mother to tell her that he was missing. Video surveillance footage subsequently showed Vazquez leaving the property at 8 p.m. the night before.

Vazquez’s parents were driving around looking for him on the morning of the shooting. Vazquez and another teenager killed three people at the San Diego mosque that day before taking their own lives.

It is unclear whether Vazquez was allowed to leave the previous evening or whether he broke facility rules by doing so. Park Mental Health offers a range of treatment options, some of which advertise 24-hour surveillance, while others provide more limited counseling.

The center did not immediately respond to an emailed request for comment Saturday afternoon. In a previous statement to radio station KPBS, Park Mental Health disputed the assertions in the lawsuit.

“While it is understandable that his parents might seek to blame someone in their time of loss, this lawsuit is misguided in that neither Park nor its employees are responsible for Mr. Vazquez’s actions,” the statement to KPBS read. “Only he and his coconspirator bear responsibility for their conduct and, ultimately, his death.”

An FBI spokesperson declined to comment Saturday, citing agency policy.

The FBI’s alleged contact with Vazquez’s parents was not the first sign of his mental deterioration.

Vazquez had been hospitalized for roughly three days in January 2026 after telling a classmate that he wanted to carry out a school shooting.

Almost exactly a year earlier, Vazquez was flagged to law enforcement for exhibiting alarming behavior and idolizing Nazis, prompting police to confiscate 26 guns from his father under a 2014 California law allowing firearms to be taken from people considered dangerous.

Authorities have said Vazquez met the other shooter, Cain Clark, 17, online and that both were radicalized there. Police have not shared more details about how they knew each other or specified whose weapons were used in the shooting.

The lawsuit was filed on the same day that North Carolina authorities announced the indictment of a 17-year-old in connection with the shooting.

The Federal Communications Commission has asked a judge to toss out ABC’s 1st Amendment lawsuit, arguing that parent company Walt Disney Co. is wrongly attempting to short-circuit the agency’s review into whether the broadcaster has violated the law.

The commission, in court documents, maintains ABC’s lawsuit was premature because regulators simply were in the process of reviewing whether ABC has served the public interest in operating its eight television stations. No final determination has been reached, the FCC argued.

FCC Chairman Brendan Carr made the rare move last spring to call for an early review of ABC’s licenses as part of his yearlong look at whether Disney’s diversity and inclusion programs violate anti-discrimination laws.

The Disney-owned station licenses were not set to expire for several years. For example, the license for KABC-TV Channel 7 in Los Angeles extends to 2030.

But the FCC launched the probe a day after President Trump complained about ABC late night comedian Jimmy Kimmel over a joke that upset First Lady Melania Trump.

ABC has taken an aggressive stance, arguing the FCC is wielding its enforcement powers to punish the network after Trump repeatedly agitated to have ABC’s licenses revoked. ABC maintains the FCC’s enforcement action is an attempt to quell the network’s free speech, in violation of the 1st Amendment. It asked a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order and injunction to halt the FCC’s early station review.

ABC also is fighting an FCC review into whether its daytime talk show, “The View,” should be entitled to an exemption from the so-called equal-time rule for political candidates who appear as guests.

Disney’s lawsuit has enormous 1st Amendment implications.

ABC is the first major broadcaster to challenge the FCC’s enforcement actions since Trump returned to power, joining a small handful of news organizations, including the Associated Press and the Wall Street Journal, that have pushed back against the president’s efforts to bully outlets he dislikes.

In late December, Trump wrote on social media: “If Network NEWSCASTS, and their Late Night Shows are almost 100% negative to President Donald J. Trump, MAGA, and the Republican Party, shouldn’t their very valuable Broadcast Licenses be terminated? I say YES!”

ABC, which did not comment Friday, argued the FCC’s review is “extraordinarily early” and “that timing underscores the Commission’s true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration’s demands.”

The FCC has scoffed at the broadcaster’s arguments.

“Disney filed a meritless lawsuit in an effort to stop the FCC’s ongoing investigation into allegations that Disney violated the law,” an FCC spokesperson said in a statement. “The FCC has developed a voluminous record, and it will continue to follow the facts and the law wherever they lead.”

The government filed its motion Thursday in Washington. The 46-page document was filed by U.S. Atty. Jeanine Pirro and signed by Assistant U.S. Atty. Dimitar P. Georgiev on behalf of the FCC.

Disney was “not content to let the Commission’s ordinary investigative processes (and, if needed, ordinary processes of judicial review) run their course. They instead ask this Court to halt the license renewal proceeding in its tracks by issuing a preliminary injunction,” the FCC said.

U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan has scheduled an Oct. 6 hearing.

Disney has argued the FCC has gone well beyond an examination of its internal hiring practices — the original purpose of the agency’s review.

But, in its motion, the FCC faulted Disney’s handling of the matter, saying “Disney’s responses to Commission information requests were deficient and nonresponsive,” prompting the agency to escalate the dispute.

In late April, Carr directed the FCC Media Bureau to force ABC to apply for renewal of their licenses early.

“The Commission’s Chairman has repeatedly emphasized that, although the allegations against Disney are serious, he and the agency remain ‘open-minded,’ have ‘not made a decision,’ and are ‘going to follow the facts and the law wherever they [lead],’ ” according to the motion.

The FCC also argued Disney picked the wrong court because Congress stipulated that any review of commission orders should be heard by an appeals court.

If ABC lost its licenses, it would hobble the network by forcing its largest stations off the air. Other ABC stations at risk include those in San Francisco, Fresno, Houston, Philadelphia and New York.

KABC-TV Channel 7 is owned by Disney in Glendale.

(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)

Trump on Sunday called for the FCC to “rebuke or punish” NBC’s “Meet the Press” anchor Kristen Welker after she pointed out that the president has had mixed success in endorsing political candidates in this election season.

The FCC also has an open investigation against NBC owner Comcast, also looking at the Philadelphia company’s diversity and hiring practices. The FCC has not ruled out calling NBC-owned station licenses in for an early review as well.

Sept. 4 (UPI) — The Federal Communications Commission asked a federal court to dismiss a lawsuit from ABC claiming the commission was curbing its right to free speech.

The Walt Disney Company and its subsidiary ABC sued the FCC on Aug. 18 to block an early license renewal from the agency, claiming the Trump administration is attacking the company for content it doesn’t like.

The FCC argued in its motion that the lawsuit is premature because the agency hadn’t yet tried to remove the licenses from eight local stations that ABC owns. In April, the FCC called for an early review of the licenses, an unusual move. None of the licenses were up for renewal for several years.

The FCC claims it asked for the early review because of ABC’s response investigation into the company’s diversity, equity and inclusion hiring policies. But the review came right after President Donald Trump told ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel after a joke about First Lady Melania Trump.

The eight stations with their licenses are in jeopardy cover New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Francisco, Raleigh-Durham, N.C., and Fresno, Calif. They renew their licenses every eight years and are almost never revoked. The FCC hasn’t filed an early-renewal order in decades.

“This [lawsuit] would only hobble the Commission’s efforts to investigate and resolve serious allegations that Disney has engaged in unlawful discrimination, and from otherwise ensuring that Disney’s stations are serving the public interest,” the FCC wrote in its filing. “Plaintiffs, in return, would only free themselves from the burdens of proving their case in administrative proceedings.”

“They have shown (at most) minimal and self-inflicted effects on speech, and no harms that could justify” blocking the agency’s moves, the FCC’s document said.

ABC had filed for an emergency stay of the FCC’s activity, arguing it was using the regulatory process to suppress its right to free speech.

ABC in its filing said that President Donald Trump is sending a “message to every media company in the country — that they should “tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government.”

“In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free,” ABC wrote. “The FCC Chairman [Brendan Carr] has left little doubt that this is his goal.”

Judge Loren L. AliKhan scheduled a hearing for the week of Oct. 5.

WASHINGTON — Billionaire investor Leon Black refused to appear for a sworn deposition before Congress on Thursday and instead sued the House Oversight Committee, asking a federal court to block subpoenas issued as part of its investigation into disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.

The House Oversight Committee served Black with two subpoenas during a closed-door voluntary interview in June after lawmakers said he refused to answer questions about nondisclosure agreements. One subpoena demanded Black produce nondisclosure agreements and other documents, while the other compelled him to return for a deposition before the committee.

Black’s lawsuit argues the subpoenas exceed the committee’s authority by seeking private information unrelated to Epstein or any legitimate legislative purpose. It asks a federal judge to declare the subpoenas invalid and prevent the committee from enforcing them.

“The Committee is on a fishing expedition that oversteps its authority and completely ignores its responsibility,” Black’s attorney, Susan Estrich, said in a statement. “This is no longer about finding the truth about Epstein. It is about trying to destroy Mr. Black.”

Top Oversight lawmakers threaten to hold Black in contempt

The top Republican and Democratic lawmakers on the committee both criticized Black’s lawsuit and said they planned to discuss later Thursday whether they would hold him in contempt of Congress.

“This is unacceptable. We’re very disappointed,” said House Oversight Chair James Comer. “Of all the powerful billionaires and political people we’ve brought in for interview and depositions, this is the first time anyone’s filed suit.”

Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the committee, called the lawsuit “laughable” and that Black is “trying to slow the process down of getting us the information.”

“Today, the process of contempt has to begin,” Garcia said.

Being held in contempt opens up a witness to criminal prosecution. If the House approves a contempt resolution against Black, it would fall to the Justice Department to decide whether to bring charges against him.

Black paid Epstein over $150 million during their yearslong relationship

Black is the co-founder and former chief executive of the private equity firm Apollo Global Management. He stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.

Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.

A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”

Black is among a number of influential figures to appear in the investigation into Epstein and the web of wealth and influence around him. Other figures to have appeared for the investigation include former Democratic President Bill Clinton, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates.

Black is mentioned repeatedly in files that the Justice Department has released related to the Epstein investigation. He also appears in a collection of birthday messages sent to Epstein that were released by the House committee last year, including a poem attributed to Black that refers to “Blond, Red or Brunette, spread out geographically.”

Before the June 26 appearance before the committee, Black maintained that he was not aware of Epstein’s “nefarious activity” until 2019 and that he paid Epstein for legitimate purposes, in part due to his “unrivaled network of relationships” with influential figures.

Cappelletti writes for the Associated Press.

A Miami investor who pleaded guilty to making insider trades connected to the parent company of President Trump’s Truth Social platform helped fund a pro-Trump documentary film in hopes of securing a presidential pardon, according to a lawsuit by an L.A. studio that accuses him of threats and extortion.

Michael Shvartsman pleaded guilty in 2024 to insider trading associated with the Trump Media & Technology Group, which federal prosecutors said netted him $18.2 million in ill-gotten gains.

Four months later, Shvartsman helped fund the documentary “The Man You Don’t Know” in an effort to obtain a pardon, according to the lawsuit filed last month in Los Angeles. He denies the allegations.

A company controlled by Shvartsman provided a $425,000 loan in August 2024 to help fund the film, according to the suit. The film featured interviews with Trump’s sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. and painted a flattering portrait of the president.

Shvartsman attended the film’s premiere that October at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., where he revealed, according to the lawsuit, that he had provided financing for the movie and “was hoping his participation would enable him to get a pardon.”

The event featured a who’s who of Trump-world insiders, including former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, the late pro wrestler and media personality Hulk Hogan, Eric and Donald Trump Jr., as well as the former and soon-to-be president.

Shvartsman and his associates “arranged meetings” with “contacts and stars” associated with the movie in the hopes of achieving his goal of a pardon, the lawsuit said, though it doesn’t state specifically whom he targeted.

Shvartsman had good reason to seek their help.

Days before the event, he had been sentenced by a federal judge in New York to two years and four months in prison for insider trading connected to the announcement of a merger that would make Trump Media & Technology Group a publicly traded company.

Shvartsman, who is a Canadian citizen, also faced the prospect of deportation after his sentence.

Shvartsman said he “disputes all facts and allegations” in the lawsuit and plans to file a countersuit.

“We are not going to litigate this matter through the press,” he wrote in a message to The Times. “We intend to address the issues through the appropriate legal process, where the relevant facts and documentation can be properly presented and considered.”

Shvartsman’s efforts to mitigate his penalty weren’t limited to the documentary film. A day before his sentencing, the Aleph Institute, a Jewish criminal justice reform group, filed a letter to the federal court in New York laying out a proposed community service plan for Shvartsman to follow. The group had been instrumental in helping secure clemency during Trump’s first term for Philip Esformes, a south Florida man who was serving a 20-year prison sentence for his role in a $1.3-billion Medicare fraud scheme.

But Shvartsman’s story didn’t have a Hollywood ending: He failed to secure a pardon.

He went to prison in January 2025 and was held in federal custody until May 29, 2026, according to Bureau of Prison records. It isn’t clear whether he remains in the U.S.

Though Shvartsman was unsuccessful, dozens of other wealthy convicted individuals have been able to win clemency during Trump’s time in office by spending big bucks on influence campaigns to secure their freedom.

Many of them have ponied up millions of dollars to lobbyists and political insiders who have built a cottage industry out of helping monied convicts secure their freedom.

Some pardon chasers have also made big donations to pro-Trump super PACs as part of their efforts.

Scammers have even tried to get in on the action.

Trump’s pardon czar, Alice Marie Johnson, recently took to social media saying that people have been impersonating her and asking for a “processing fee” to help smooth the path to clemency. She said that neither she nor her office would ever ask for such a payment.

The lawsuit against Shvartsman, brought by the Los Angeles film production company Global Ascension Studios and its chief executive, Joshua Macciello, alleges that Shvartsman and his associates demanded immediate repayment of the loan the day after the 2024 Mar-a-Lago event — nine months before it was due — and threatened Macciello’s “physical safety” if the film company didn’t pay immediately or transfer control of the company to Shvartsman.

The lawsuit alleges that Macciello modified the loan agreement under duress and agreed to give Shvartsman and his company a greater share of the film’s potential proceeds.

It isn’t clear whether the loan has yet been repaid.

The proceeds from the film would prove to be middling.

The film was released days before Trump’s 2024 election victory, but its producers blamed political bias for the movie’s lackluster box office performance after fewer theaters than expected agreed to show it.

“In 37 years, I’ve never seen creative work get censored by theaters in this country,” Arthur Sarkissian, Global Ascension Studios’ former head of production, who was involved in the project, told Deadline at the time.

Sarkissian, best known as a producer of the “Rush Hour” franchise, is also being sued by Global Ascension and Macciello, who accused him of fraud and breach of contract in a lawsuit filed last year in Los Angeles.

Sarkissian has filed a counterclaim against Global Ascension, Macciello and others connected to the film production company, also accusing them of fraud and breach of contract.

The case is ongoing.

Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith has been accused of taking part in a scheme that allegedly scammed $2.5 million from a Native American investment firm.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, a tribal owned and operated economic developmental agency for the North Carolina-based Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians claimed the former Dallas Cowboys superstar, his longtime business partner David Mosley and their real estate development and renewable energy company 4 13 Solutions Inc. borrowed the money, did not use it for its intended purpose and have not paid it back.

According to the lawsuit, Smith and Mosley convinced the tribal agency, Kituwah LLC, to help their company acquire a proposed solar energy farm in Texas.

“By using false projections and data, misrepresenting the level of interest and potential investments from other investors, making promises that they had no intention of fulfilling, and relying on the participation of other coconspirators, Smith and Mosley induced Kituwah to form a joint venture with their company, 4 13 Solutions, and to loan $2.5 million to the joint venture,” the complaint states.

“Smith and Mosley promised to use the funds to acquire an interest in a renewable energy project in Texas (‘Project Exodus’), transfer that interest back to the joint venture, and ultimately repay Kituwah’s money. But instead, they took the money and used it to improperly pay Wilson Holdings, with whom they had partnered on other ventures.”

Smith, Mosley, 4 13 Solutions, Wilson Holdings and its principal owner, Darrel Wilson, and the group’s joint venture firm, Jabez 4 10 LLC, were named as co-defendants. Representatives for Smith, Mosley and 4 13 Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The loan came due on Feb. 1, 2024, according to the complaint, and remains unpaid despite numerous efforts to collect. Smith is accused of fraudulent inducement and breach of fiduciary duty. Seeking the return of its investment as well as interest and other costs and expenses, Kituwah says it is owed more than $3 million.

“Moreover, despite 4 13 Solutions’ representation that Project Exodus would be up and running by the end of 2024, Kituwah has not seen any evidence that Project Exodus has made any meaningful progress towards completion,” the lawsuit states.

“Kituwah commenced an investigation. It has determined that 4 13 Solutions’ representations were part of Smith’s and Mosley’s scheme to cheat Kituwah out of $2.5 million dollars. Instead of using the loan proceeds to acquire Project Exodus as promised, 4 13 Solutions used the $2.5 million to pay Wilson Holdings, apparently for money that Wilson Holdings had previously invested. Essentially, like a Ponzi scheme.”

A federal judge this week threw out the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California policies that allow transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity.

The Justice Department alleged that the California Department of Education and the California Interscholastic Federation were in violation of Title IX, a 1972 federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in any education program or activity that receives federal funding. It argued the law requires that sports eligibility and facilities access be based on biological sex, not gender identity.

But U.S. District Judge Cynthia Valenzuela found that Title IX does no such thing — and that a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing other states to apply such eligibility standards only reinforced her conclusion.

Valenzuela, an appointee of President Biden, wrote that the Supreme Court had “explained that Title IX’s regulations ‘expressly permit schools’ to maintain separate sex-based teams and ultimately held that States ‘may maintain women’s and girls’ sports for biological females’ and ‘may determine eligibility’ for those teams based on biological sex” — and “thus upheld the biological-sex eligibility rules before it without holding that Title IX requires every school to adopt the same rule.”

Valenzuela wrote that the Supreme Court “declined to decide whether Title IX permits transgender girls to participate on girls’ and women’s teams,” and “expressly stated” that nothing in its opinion addressed that “distinct question.”

Valenzuela wrote that she, likewise, did not need to decide that issue, only “whether Title IX and its implementing regulations clearly required California to exclude transgender girls from girls’ teams and sex-separated facilities.” She found “they did not.”

Therefore, Valenzuela wrote that California “lacked clear notice” of such categorical exclusion of transgender athletes as a condition of the federal funding California received, and other court decisions — including the Supreme Court’s in June — did not “supply the missing clarity.”

A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency is “evaluating our options for appeal.”

“We are disappointed by the Court’s order, and remain committed to enforcing President Trump’s agenda preventing boys from playing in girls’ sports,” it said, referring to transgender girls.

The Justice Department suit threatened to cut $44.3 billion in federal funding from the California Department of Education, if the state did not change its policies.

California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta’s office, which represented the California agencies in court, deferred questions to the agencies.

Rebecca Brutlag, a spokesperson for the CIF, said it does not comment on legal matters. The California Department of Education did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In court, they had made similar arguments as those Valenzuela cited in her ruling — arguing that Title IX does not require excluding transgender girls from girls’ sports, and neither does the recent Supreme Court ruling.

LGBTQ+ rights organizations praised Valenzuela’s ruling Tuesday.

Trevor Norcross, the father of Lily Norcross — a teenage transgender track athlete at Arroyo Grande High School on the Central Coast and one of the athletes whose participation in sports was cited by the Justice Department as a violation of Title IX — said it is “time to get back to supporting and enjoying girls’ and women’s sports instead of trying to tear them down.”

“I’m especially excited that girls in California can now focus on athletic competition without having to worry about manufactured culture wars and the prospect of invasive body inspections if they don’t look feminine enough,” he said.

Rainbow Families Action, a group that advocates for the rights of trans kids, hailed the decision, saying the Trump administration’s “relentless and hateful campaign against transgender children has hit another roadblock.”

The Justice Department’s lawsuit was brought by two longtime critics of California’s policies for transgender students: Harmeet Dhillon, a hard-charging conservative attorney in California before her elevation to head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division; and Bill Essayli, a conservative state lawmaker before his elevation to lead the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

It was part of a much broader and ongoing effort by the Trump administration to erase trans-inclusive policies nationwide — around youth sports but also public bathrooms, medical care and official government documents.

California’s own policies for transgender athletes have been in flux.

Last year, President Trump took to his social media platform and demanded that state officials ban transgender teenage track star AB Hernandez from competing at the state track and field competition.

Amid those threats, the CIF updated its rules for transgender competitors. Under the new rules, transgender athletes can compete, but their qualifying for events cannot take a spot away from any cisgender competitor, and they must share whichever podium position they win with the next best cisgender athlete.

Hernandez went on to compete and win multiple medals, sharing her spots on the medal podiums with the cisgender athletes who otherwise would have claimed them had Hernandez not been competing. Hernandez repeated her success this year, again sharing her wins with cisgender competitors.

Los Angeles Times reporter Howard Blume contributed to this article.

Los Angeles County announced Monday that it had filed a lawsuit against State Farm General after hundreds of victims of last year’s devastating wildfires complained that their claims had been delayed, denied or underpaid.

The lawsuit alleges that State Farm engaged in illegal and deceptive business practices that kept victims of the Palisades and Eaton fires from receiving what they were entitled to under their policies.

County officials said their investigation into the complaints found unreasonable delays in processing claims, as well as “systematic underpayments.”

Officials said they also found that State Farm had illegally suppressed smoke damage claims.

“Survivors are just asking for what’s right,” L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who represents Altadena, said at a Monday news conference.

Bob Devereux, a State Farm spokesman, said in a statement that the company would respond to the lawsuit through the legal process.

“State Farm General strongly disagrees with Los Angeles County’s characterization of our wildfire claims response,” he said.

Devereux said that State Farm has so far paid more than $6.2 billion on claims related to the two wildfires, including about $1 billion for smoke-related damage. About 78% of the claims have been closed, he said.

“We continue working directly with customers whose claims remain open and evaluating each claim based on the facts of the loss and the coverage provided by the customer’s policy,” he said.

“Our focus remains on helping customers recover,” he said.

Wildfire victims praised county officials for the lawsuit, which was filed in L.A. County Superior Court.

Joy Chen, executive director of Every Fire Survivor’s Network, said at the news conference that, in the months after the fires, it became apparent in talking to victims that those with State Farm policies were not getting the benefits they had paid for.

She said for those families, insurance had become “a barrier to recovery” rather than a safety net.

“Nineteen months after the fires, families are still suffering,” she said.

The county’s investigation included looking at complaints that Chen’s group and others had collected, as well as hundreds of other documents from State Farm policyholders.

County officials said that State Farm “failed to substantially comply” with their requests for documents and information during their investigation.

With more than 2.8 million residential and commercial policies, State Farm is California’s largest private insurer.

The county’s lawsuit includes dozens of complaints of L.A. County fire victims.

“After six decades of paying thousands a year for insurance, we expect them to honor their agreement,” said one family.

Many families say the insurer refused to test their homes for toxins left by smoke.

The lawsuit claims that State Farm “drastically lowballed” estimates of financial losses for destroyed or partially damaged homes.

“They offered us $11,000 to remediate our five-bedroom house,” complained one family. ”That’s only 13% of the actual cost.”

According to the California Department of Insurance, 11,300 State Farm policyholders filed homeowner claims arising from last year’s L.A. County fires.

The lawsuit asks the court to require State Farm to pay full restitution to policyholders, as well as civil penalties for violating state law.

A bipartisan package of bills aimed at punishing unethical attorneys and hedge funds that have flourished within California’s legal industry is headed to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk.

The two bills would bar lawyers from prioritizing the desires of private investors who fund lawsuits, and ramp up penalties for lawyers who scout for clients at hospitals, jails and accident sites.

Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), one of the bill authors, said the legislation is intended to police the state’s bruised legal profession in response to “a wave of inappropriate attorney conduct” reported by The Times.

Times investigations last year found some clients within L.A. County’s $4-billion sex abuse settlement said they were paid to sue and, in some cases, fabricate claims.

“When attorneys are exploiting vulnerable people, including paying folks to file fraudulent claims, they’re not just breaking the law, they really undermine the credibility of the legal system and every attorney,” Zbur said.

Both bills were sponsored by the Consumer Attorneys of California, a powerful trial lawyer trade group that says it wants to beef up punishment for misconduct.

“If we are going to demand that corporations, government, and powerful institutions be held accountable, we must be — and we are — willing to hold ourselves to that same standard,” Doug Saeltzer, head of the association, said in a statement.

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

Zbur’s legislation, Assembly Bill 2039, would require that attorneys lose their license if they’re convicted of felony capping or a misdemeanor capping conviction in which they “acted knowingly and for financial gain.” The lawyers could also be fined $25,000 per violation.

The bill also creates whistleblower protections for law firm employees who report misconduct, and would enact new restrictions on loans that attorneys give their clients. California is one of the few states where lawyers can lend money directly to plaintiffs.

Lawyers who use the loans to sway the client’s decision-making around “legal strategy, settlement decisions, or continued representation” can be fined $15,000 per offense.

The second bill aims to bar private investors from influencing a case — for example, telling a lawyer how many clients to take on or when to settle — in lawsuits they fund.

California allows lawyers to take high-interest rate loans from investors, such as private equity firms or hedge funds, who expect to profit from the payout when a case is settled. Critics of this litigation funding claim investors sometimes exert themselves in legal strategy to the detriment of the clients, such as requiring a case to settle prematurely so the law firm can repay the loan faster.

“We don’t want them having any influence in the outcome of a case,” said Assemblyman Ash Kalra (D-San José), who authored AB 2305. “We want the lawyers to be able to represent their clients, and then not have those financial pressures play any role.”

A spokesperson for Newsom’s office said they don’t comment on pending legislation.

Lawyers already are barred under State Bar rules from allowing a third party to dictate case strategy. Kalra has said the goal of the bill is to provide additional “clear statutory safeguards.”

Law firms would also be barred from using money from private investors to market for cases, Kalra said. The State Bar would be tasked with disciplining lawyers that flout the rule.

A Times investigation last year found law firms that have filed thousands of sex abuse claims in California are funded by private investors, meaning an unknown chunk of the $4-billion settlement will go into the pockets of opaque funders.

It’s unclear how violations of the law would come to the attention of the State Bar. Litigation funding agreements are typically private between the funder and the law firm, and clients often don’t know their cases are being funded by private investors.

Jaime Huff, the head of the Civil Justice Assn. of California, which advocates for lawsuit reform on behalf of business interests, said her group — a frequent foe of California trial lawyers — ultimately pulled their support from the bill because they found it toothless.

“I don’t trust the State Bar to tie their own shoes in the morning, much less govern this stuff,” said Huff. “It’s basically gaslighting the public into thinking, ‘Yes, they’ve done something.’”

“It’s like the mall cop of self-policing,” she added.

Kalra said the point was to send a blunt message to the state’s legal bar.

“There may be loopholes that folks find in this one, and they have to follow up and close those loopholes,” he said. “But ultimately, it makes a very clear rule as to how that funding can be used. Once that rule is in place, it’s the law. And lawyers have to follow the law.”

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states sued again Wednesday to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules for mail ballots, arguing they usurp state authority over elections at President Trump’s behest, expose voter information unnecessarily and threaten chaos in the rapidly approaching November election.

The Postal Service formally issued a 95-page “final rule” on Friday asserting that it was amending its mailing standards for mail ballots in federal elections to comply with Trump’s March executive order.

Trump demanded the rule changes as part of a broader plan to combat what he alleges — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including by noncitizens voting through the mail. Election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing at scale.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

The new postal rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters — including their names and addresses — to the Postal Service, and to use new ballot envelopes with digital barcodes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists.

The rules do not give the Postal Service authority to dictate which voters may appear on state lists. However, the rules do acknowledge that the lists would provide state voter data to federal law enforcement for the first time, and would put those authorities in “a better position to identify any potential issues regarding compliance with federal law that may merit further investigation.”

Trump’s March executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to use available federal data to compile its own state lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to compare them with the mail voter lists provided by the states to the Postal Service, and identify and pursue any ineligible voters.

Wednesday’s lawsuit follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found an earlier challenge from the states was premature, in part because it sought court relief to a rule-making process that required nothing of the states and before the Postal Service had moved to implement any changes.

“On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Bonta said.

The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit.

However, it has defended Trump’s executive order as overdue and badly needed to secure U.S. elections, and hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the rule-making to proceed as “a major win for the security of American elections.”

“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

The high court allowed the Postal Service to move forward with its work to comply with Trump’s order, but explicitly noted that it had reached no conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules.

Trump administration officials have said they are pursuing fraudulent voters, and have warned state election officials that they could face legal consequences personally if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

Critics contend Trump’s executive order was devised as an end run around laws and a slew of recent court rulings blocking the Trump administration’s demands for state voter rolls — which states, including California, have refused to provide.

States have argued the administration’s demands are in bad faith, intended to bolster Trump’s baseless claims that U.S. elections are compromised rather than enhance election security.

In issuing its new rules, the Postal Service rejected a slate of concerns from critics who submitted comments on the proposed rules, including that the changes are being proposed far too close to the November election and will cost states and localities a huge amount of money to comply with.

It also rejected concerns that creating a single nationwide voter database — which has never existed before — will provide a massive new target for foreign adversaries and other bad actors interested in disrupting U.S. elections.

The Postal Service concluded that the cost to the states is outweighed by the benefits of the changes. It said it has sufficient staffing to implement the changes, and is ready to safeguard the database it builds using “multi-layered security controls.”

The lawsuit, brought by 24 state attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks for immediate court intervention to halt the Postal Service changes from being implemented while the litigation continues.

“Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS,” Bonta said. “Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

Independent voting rights groups have also sued to block the Postal Service rules from being implemented.

When Lane Kiffin dials a number, the person on the other end usually answers and takes the call.

Todd Monken crossed paths with Kiffin many times while both crisscrossed the country for decades, taking this job and that, as head coaches and assistants at top colleges and in the NFL.

Monken became an NFL head coach for the first time in January, taking over the Cleveland Browns. Kiffin is about to begin his first season as the Louisiana State head coach, so Monken didn’t know why Kiffin’s number popped up on his screen over the weekend.

“I wondered why Lane Kiffin reached out to me a week ago,” Monken told reporters Sunday. “Now I know. I didn’t call him back. I guess I should have.”

Kiffin called to tell Monken something the rookie NFL coach learned later in the day. Dae’Quan Wright, a tight end the Browns waived Sunday morning, plans to play for LSU if he clears waivers, his agents told ESPN.

Dae’Quan Wright of the Cleveland Browns warms up before a preseason game against the Buffalo Bills at Huntington Bank Field on Aug. 22.

(Nick Cammett / Diamond Images via Getty Images)

Wright, who went undrafted after playing for Kiffin at Mississippi, is believed to be the first player to have an agreement to return to college football after signing with an NFL team. He was with the Browns for fewer than two weeks after the Philadelphia Eagles signed him as an undrafted free agent and placed him on waivers in early August.

Although Wright didn’t play in the Browns’ two preseason games, he suited up Saturday against the Buffalo Bills because injuries to other players created a potential need. He never left the sideline.

Another NFL player being courted by Kiffin, however, saw action. . Tampa Bay Buccaneers rookie linebacker Jack Pyburn recorded two sacks in a preseason victory over the New York Jets on Friday.

Pyburn, who also went undrafted after playing three years at Florida and his senior year at LSU, can regain his college eligibility if he terminates his contract with the Bucs and repays earnings. Pyburn’s deal guaranteed him $115,000 and included a $15,000 signing bonus.

LSU could pay him an estimated $1 million for his NIL, exceeding the NFL full-season rookie minimum of $885,000.

“I’m kind of caught in the middle of a whirlwind,” Pyburn told the Athletic, “and I’m just trying to play football.”

Wright and Pyburn are two of about 30 athletes who filed a lawsuit in Louisiana and were granted a temporary restraining order to return to college for one more season.

The lawsuit challenges new NCAA eligibility rules that give athletes a five-year window to compete in college sports. The plaintiffs are 2022 high school graduates whose college eligibility expired last spring under the previous rules. The NCAA did not include them in implementation of age-based eligibility, prompting lawsuits.

Several state courts have ruled in the players’ favor, and they have eligibility in the upcoming school year until appeals are ruled on. Most of the plaintiffs are basketball players, but Wright and Pyburn are two of 16 football players benefiting from the temporary restraining order granted by Louisiana’s 19th Judicial District Court.

Phil McGraw’s longtime publicist has filed a lawsuit against the celebrity therapist, better known as Dr. Phil, on claims of wrongful termination and discrimination.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Jerry Sharell said McGraw recruited him to continue working for him after he left CBS in 2023 and relocated to Dallas, where he planned to start his own television network, Merit Street Media.

But Sharell alleges in his complaint that he was “intentionally excluded” from the group of 20 employees who migrated to Texas because he is openly “homosexual,” and was later singled out before being put on hiatus.

The suit is the latest legal fight for McGraw. Last year his new network Merit Street filed for bankruptcy protection, a little more than a year after he launched the media startup, and then sued its distribution partner, Trinity Broadcasting Network.

Last fall, a federal bankruptcy judge ordered the network liquidated, finding evidence that McGraw deleted text messages to conceal plans favoring certain creditors over others.

At the time, a spokesperson for McGraw’s production company vigorously denied the accusation that he destroyed evidence and said he was appealing the ruling.

McGraw later launched Envoy Media, prompting accusations the bankruptcy was filed in bad faith specifically to escape creditors and fund his new venture, which he denied.

Chip Babcock, a lawyer representing Envoy Media, disputed Sharell’s allegations, calling the lawsuit “an effort to avoid a pending arbitration to which Sharell contractually agreed which he has now violated in a number of ways. The company and Dr. Phil will vigorously defend these claims,” in a statement to The Times.

“Jerry Sharell was put on hiatus over the summer as is common in this industry, especially with a media start up. He was not fired for any reason and certainly not because of his sexual orientation. These allegations against Envoy and Dr. Phil are made up out of whole cloth as he has a 25 year history of treating the LGBTQ+ communities with dignity and respect, including standing up for his guests who were attacked because of their sexual preferences.”

In his complaint, Sharell states that McGraw told him he would remain in California, saying, “you’re Hollywood.” However, the publicist said he came to the realization that “McGraw did not want him present in the building or attending meetings with TBN executives.”

Merit Street was a joint venture with the Trinity Broadcasting Network (TBN), the largest Christian-based network. Sharell said that he was given a copy of the Employee Handbook, and employees “were asked to sign a ‘Statement of Faith’ declaring their devotion to Jesus.”

Although he remained in L.A., starting in spring 2024 Sharell began traveling monthly to the Dallas headquarters of Merit Street, where he said many TBN employees now worked. During his first visit he alleged that a man known as “Pastor D” came weekly to pray with employees, leaving prayer cards on the desks of those who did not participate including that of Sharell’s.

Pastor D also led prayer services at an open house event for advertisers, prospective investors and media, that Sharell found “both disturbing and shocking, given he had never known Defendant McGraw to be overly religious,” according to the complaint.

During another visit, Sharell alleges that an IT employee noticed a photograph of Sharell while working on a staffer’s computer and said, “There’s too many of THEM around here. And it’s evil.”

While traveling on a private plane with McGraw, wife Robin McGraw and other individuals, Sharell claims he was answering emails and did not hear McGraw, who said, “Jeez, he’s gayer than a fruit basket and not listening.”

The publicist said that he worked for McGraw for 10 years until March 2026, “advancing, protecting, publicizing, protecting, and supporting” McGraw and his enterprises.

According to the suit, Sharell worked through the Merit Street bankruptcy and the subsequent establishment of Envoy Media, “receiving assignments and direction” from McGraw, dealing with executives and securing media placements among other duties.

After the company transitioned to Envoy Media, Sharell states in his lawsuit he went from being treated as an employee with benefits to being characterized as an independent contractor, losing his benefits, including health coverage and his compensation was reduced by 30%.

Sharell alleges that although his job remained the same, that he felt “compelled” to accept the new arrangement while under “a great deal of duress and stress,” during which he said he was “reminded” by Envoy Media Chief Executive Ken Solomon that McGraw valued “loyalty.”

Then, in March, Sharell received a call from Solomon informing him that his position was being put on “hiatus” due to “financial considerations,” even though no other employees were put in hiatus or had their salaries reduced.

He said he told Solomon that he felt he was “being singled out or targeted,” according to the lawsuit.