payout

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

It’s an unusual request.

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

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

“If we ever became aware that anyone associated with us, in any capacity, did such a thing, we would end our relationship with them immediately,” the firm said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Rebecca Ellis / Los Angeles Times)

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

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

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

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

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

Nearly 30 million people in the UK who bought an Apple or Samsung smartphone between 2015 and 2024 may be entitled to about £17 if the consumer campaign group Which? is successful in a case against US tech giant Qualcomm.

The consumer group is taking the tech giant to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in London on Monday.

The trial between Which? and Qualcomm is expected to last five weeks. The consumer group is accusing the chip company of anti-competitive practices.

It claims the firm forced Apple and Samsung to pay inflated prices and licensing fees for essential handset components, which then pushed up the cost of those smartphones for consumers.

The BBC has reached out to Qualcomm for comment.

The trial starting on Monday will focus on whether Qualcomm held market power and, if so, whether it abused a dominant position.

If Which? is successful, there will be a second stage seeking £480m from Qualcomm, to be distributed among an estimated 29 million British phone owners affected.

Which? is seeking damages for all affected Apple and Samsung smartphones purchased between 1 October 2015 and 9 January 2024.

The consumer group says this would probably work out at around £17 each. Qualcomm has previously said the case has “no basis”.

A similar case against Qualcomm is ongoing in Canada, and the firm has also previously been fined by the EU for antitrust.

Anabel Hoult, chief executive of Which?, said: “This trial is a huge moment. It shows how the power of consumers – backed by Which? – can be used to hold the biggest companies to account if they abuse their dominant position.”

Qualcomm is one of the world’s biggest producers of smartphone chips and has faced allegations about anti-competitive behaviour before.

The Federal Trade Commission in the United States sued the firm for unfair practices in the way it licensed its technology back in 2017, but had its case dismissed in 2020.

A MUM received a £3,500 payout after “disgusting” police officers were caught throwing her lingerie around and laughing at her sex toys while raiding her home.

Nichola Corr, 51, claimed the cops were like “children in a playground” as they searched her house as part of a drugs investigation into a family member.

Bodycam footage captured them discovering her £1,000 collection of erotic gadgets and chucking her racy G-string knickers at each other on her bed.

Nichola said: “The male officer that threw the underwear was looking through my whole toy box, laughing, joking, going: ‘Oh, look at this. Jesus Christ, look at this!’

“They were taking the absolute piss! It was like they were children in a playground the way they were acting. It was disgusting.”

She complained after no arrests, charges or prosecutions were brought by Suffolk Police following the raid of her home in Essex in October 2023.

Its Professional Standards Department found the officers’ behaviour was “unacceptable and unprofessional” but formal disciplinary action wasn’t required.

Nichola, who is now getting a divorce from her husband, added: “I don’t trust the police anymore.

“I always used to say if you ever need the police, they’ll be there for you. But no, not in this day and age. They’re using their power over people.”

Suffolk Police claimed the cops were all “very young in terms of service” and their behaviour was “considered to be more due to immaturity than spite”.

One officer had already left the force when the complaint was received but the remaining two were required to apologise and undertake ‘Reflective Practice’.

Last week, Hertfordshire Police cop Marcin Zielinski, 27, was jailed for four months after nicking a woman’s underwear while searching her home.

1

A compensation scheme for drivers over the mis-selling of car loans could cost as much as £18bn, the financial regulator has said.

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that hidden commissions from lenders to dealers on car loans were not unlawful, meaning millions of motorists will not be able to claim.

However, the judgement left open the possibility of compensation claims for particularly large commissions which the Supreme Court said were unfair.

Following the ruling, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said it will consult on running a payout scheme – estimated to cost between £9bn and £18bn.

It said that “most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation”, with the first payouts expected next year if the scheme goes ahead.

Those who have already complained do not need to do anything, the FCA said, advising those who have yet to complain to contact their car loan provider rather than using a claims management company.

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

Five California women sued a Fresno County school system Wednesday, alleging officials brushed aside claims they were being sexually assaulted by a second-grade teacher who was later convicted of similar abuse.

The case against the Clovis Unified School District comes amid a tidal wave of sexual abuse litigation that has left lawmakers scrambling to stop misconduct — and schools struggling to pay settlements owed to victims suing over crimes that stretch back decades.

The latest case dates back to the late 1990s and early 2000s. Plaintiff Samantha Muñoz, now a 28-year-old mother of two, is among those alleging she was abused by then-Fancher Creek Elementary School teacher Neng Yang.

Muñoz claims in the lawsuit that Yang began molesting her in 2004, when she was his 7-year-old student. By that time, the lawsuit says, girls had been complaining to Clovis Unified School District officials about Yang for years. The teacher was eventually arrested for producing child pornography in 2012, and has spent the past decade in federal prison in San Pedro, where he is serving a 38-year term for sexual exploitation of a minor.

“Clovis Unified was protecting this predator,” said Muñoz. “They continued to have him teaching at that school knowing he was [assaulting students].”

The Times does not typically identify victims of sexual assault, but Muñoz and two of her four co-plaintiffs said they wanted to speak out publicly about what happened.

Kelly Avants, a spokeswoman for Clovis Unified, said the district had not yet received notice of the lawsuit.

“We have not been served with the suit yet, but will review it when we are served and respond accordingly,” Avants said.

The public defender’s office that represented Yang in his criminal case referred questions to federal prosecutors in the Eastern District of California. A spokesperson for that office said they could offer no comment.

“When a teacher saw him showing me child pornography on his phone, school officials interrogated me and then encouraged me to say nothing,” Muñoz said. “I was left in his classroom and he kept abusing me.”

The Fresno case follows a landmark $4-billion settlement this spring over sexual abuse in L.A. County’s juvenile facilities, group and foster homes — believed to be the largest in U.S. history.

On Tuesday, the state’s largest school district, Los Angeles Unified, announced it would sell up to $500 million in bonds to help cover its anticipated sexual abuse liability.

“There’s tremendous cost pressures on school districts,” said Michael Fine, head of California’s Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team, which published a report in January estimating state education agencies could be liable for $2 billion to $3 billion for past sexual misconduct. “No matter what, the money’s coming out of their current resources.”

The payouts stem from a series of recent changes to California’s statute of limitations for child sexual assault. Beginning with Assembly Bill 218 in 2019, the state opened a brief window for allegations going back as far as 1940. The law permanently extended the deadline for victims to file child sex abuse claims until age 40, or within five years of realizing a new illness or “psychological injury” as a result of abuse.

“There are definitely school districts out there that feel the state changed the law so the state should pay,” Fine said.

Some in the debate argue only abusers — not cash-strapped schools — should be liable for misconduct.

For most California school districts, the money is likely to come from a public entity risk pool, a collective pot that multiple agencies pay into to cover liabilities such as health insurance and workers’ compensation.

Many pools are assessing their members “retroactive premiums” in an attempt to cover sex abuse suits touched off by the change in the law, Fine said. That means even schools that haven’t been sued face higher operating costs.

“There’s impacts to the classroom whether there’s a claim or not, because they’ve got to pay the retroactive premiums somehow,” he said. “If they were in the pool, they’re on the hook.”

In its report, the agency recommended alternative ways the state and school districts might cover liabilities stemming from the law — including a modified form of receivership for agencies that can’t pay, and a new state victim’s compensation fund — as well as concrete steps to stem abuse.

The latter have been enthusiastically adopted by California lawmakers, including state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra). But other suggestions have been ignored, Fine said.

“There isn’t a bill out there that carries the rest of our recommendations,” he said.

After months spent trying to understand the scale and the magnitude of the liability California institutions are facing, stories like those in the Clovis Unified suit haunt him, Fine said.

“It’s emotionally overwhelming,” he said.

Plaintiffs in the Clovis case described nearly identical abuse stretching back to 1998, when Yang was still a student teacher.

According to Wednesday’s complaint, then-second-grader Tiffany Thrailkill told the Francher Creek principal, vice principal and school counselor that Yang had groped her and forced her to perform oral sex.

“In response, [officials] took the position that Tiffany was lying and referred her to psychological treatment,” the suit alleged.

Despite laws dating back to the 1980s that require abuse to be reported, school officials kept the allegations quiet and never investigated Yang, the suit said.

“Instead of reporting Yang and protecting their students, it appears school officials blamed the girls, looked the other way, and enabled Yang to abuse their students for over a decade,” said Jason Amala, the plaintiffs’ attorney.

Ultimately, Yang was caught by the Central California Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force, a partnership between the Clovis Police Department and Homeland Security Investigations.

For Muñoz, the teacher’s conviction was cold comfort. While she believes speaking out about her experience will inspire other victims to come forward, she now faces the agonizing decision of whether to send her nonverbal 4-year-old for early intervention services at the same elementary school where her suit alleges her nightmare began.

“Why would I want to go drop off my son at a place that’s nothing but bad memories?” the mother said. “It’s like signing my life away to the devil again.”

“I just need them to be accountable for who they protected,” Muñoz said.

THE family of a chef who was killed in the Bayesian superyacht tragedy want justice for his death, a report claims.

Recaldo Thomas, 59, was among the seven people who died after Brit billionaire Mike Lynch’s yacht sank off the coast of Sicily during a storm last year.

9

9

9

Recaldo’s family are now seeking compensation for his tragic death – and they could be in line for a $40 million payout.

The chef’s sister-in-law Joycelyn Palmer told MailOnline: “We just want justice and yes, we will be looking at compensation, someone must pay for what happened.”

Last week a report detailing the “vulnerability” of the yacht revealed how the tragedy unfolded.

A thorough investigation has shown that the ship was likely knocked over by “extreme wind” and was not able to recover.

But Palmer believes the yacht’s 236ft mast may have also played a part in the tragic sinking.

Recaldo’s sister-in-law said: “I looked up the yacht and when I saw the mast I just thought that must have something to do with what happened.

“You can even see it in one of the last pictures he sent us.”

She also claimed the crew were at fault as they had taken the weather for granted and didn’t alert the captain until it was “too late”.

Palmer recalled the emotional turmoil the family experienced in the aftermath of the tragedy.

She said it took six long weeks to get Recaldo’s body, meaning they were unable to have an open-casket funeral and say their goodbyes properly.

Palmer described her brother-in-law as a lovely man who had a heart of gold and an infectious smile.

The family’s lawyer said they were looking at a US lawsuit against “various entities”.

They added that a $40million pay-out would not be out of the question for the “emotional loss”.

Recaldo was among seven passengers who died when the 184ft yacht capsized and sank on August 19.

9

9

Anchored off the coast of Porticello Harbour in Palermo, a downburst of stormy winds hit the boat causing it to topple.

It sunk to the sea floor in minutes and prompted a huge five-day search operation with specialist divers, underwater drones and helicopters.

Recaldo was found dead near the wreck site on August 19, but it took several more days to recover six missing guests including the Brit billionaire and his daughter.

New York lawyer Chris Morvillo and wife Neda also died, as did Morgan Stanley international chairman Jonathan Bloomer and his wife Judy.

Just two months before the disaster, Lynch had been cleared of carrying out a massive fraud over the sale of his software firm Autonomy to Hewlett-Packard in 2011.

The boat trip was a celebration of his acquittal in the case in the US.

9

9

An interim report by the Marine Accident Investigation Branch revealed last week that the yacht had a “vulnerability” to lighter winds which the owner and crew may not have known about.

Andrew Moll, chief inspector of marine accidents, said: “The findings indicate that the extreme wind experienced by Bayesian was sufficient to knock the yacht over.

“Further, once the yacht had heeled beyond an angle of 70° the situation was irrecoverable.

“The results will be refined as the investigation proceeds, and more information becomes available.”

The salvage operation for the superyacht is officially underway.

Floating cranes, remote-controlled robots, and specialist divers amongst other marine experts are all helping to recovery the vessel.

But the operation had to be put on pause just days after it started when a diver died.

The diver, who is thought to be a Dutch national, reportedly died when working 160ft below the ocean alongside other recovery workers to cut the boom of the yacht.

9

9

After an unsuccessful attempt trying to cut the section, the divers are believed to have used a blow torch.

Local media speculated that the man was hit by part of the cut boom as it came off whilst he was underwater.

But police said they have launched a probe to understand what exactly caused the man’s death.

According to other local media reports, an underwater explosion was heard by at least one person before the man was found dead.

Inside the Bayesian’s final 16 minutes

By Ellie Doughty, Foreign News Reporter

Data recovered from the Bayesian’s Automatic Identification System (AIS) breaks down exactly how it sank in a painful minute-by-minute timeline.

At 3.50am on Monday August 19 the Bayesian began to shake “dangerously” during a fierce storm, Italian outlet Corriere revealed.

Just minutes later at 3.59am the boat’s anchor gave way, with a source saying the data showed there was “no anchor left to hold”.

After the ferocious weather ripped away the boat’s mooring it was dragged some 358 metres through the water.

By 4am it had began to take on water and was plunged into a blackout, indicating that the waves had reached its generator or even engine room.

At 4.05am the Bayesian fully disappeared underneath the waves.

An emergency GPS signal was finally emitted at 4.06am to the coastguard station in Bari, a city nearby, alerting them that the vessel had sunk.

Early reports suggested the disaster struck around 5am local time off the coast of Porticello Harbour in Palermo, Sicily.

The new data pulled from the boat’s AIS appears to suggest it happened an hour earlier at around 4am.

Some 15 of the 22 onboard were rescued, 11 of them scrambling onto an inflatable life raft that sprung up on the deck.

A smaller nearby boat – named Sir Robert Baden Powell – then helped take those people to shore.

In police circles, it’s known as the “LAPD lottery.”

Speaking at a city budget presentation this month, Police Chief Jim McDonnell said some officers have sought to “weaponize” the department’s disciplinary system to settle grievances, leaving city taxpayers on the hook for the legal bills.

Los Angeles has paid out at least $68.5 million over the last five years to resolve lawsuits filed by officers who claimed to be the victim of sexual harassment, racial discrimination or retaliation against whistleblowers, according to a Times analysis of payout data released by the city attorney’s office.

Skeptics inside the Los Angeles Police Department write off the claims as opportunistic officers trying to hit the jackpot, twisting paper trails created by the department’s much-maligned internal discipline system into the basis for lawsuits.

But the officers who sue and their labor attorneys argue the department’s continued failure to thoroughly investigate complaints or fix systemic issues leaves no other recourse.

Several recent civil trials have resulted in settlements or jury awards in the seven figures or more, including $11.5 million to a former K-9 officer who alleged colleagues spread false rumors about him and mocked his Samoan heritage. Dozens of other suits remain pending, likely leaving the city staring down more substantial payouts in the coming years.

The question of how to deal with the suits has emerged as one of the most pressing issues since McDonnell’s tenure as chief began in November. Mayor Karen Bass has said the city’s $1-billion budget deficit is at least partly driven by expensive legal payouts, as well as emergency response costs related to the Palisades fire and “downward national economic trends.”

Last year, the LAPD’s private fundraising arm gave $240,000 to hire an outside consultant to help the department analyze “the results of litigation to see if there are lessons to be learned from that.”

The consultant, Arif Alikhan, the department’s former director of constitutional policing, said he and his team are seeking to identify trends of risky behavior, improve tracking of problem employees and hold supervisors accountable for not addressing conduct that exposes the department to liability.

Part of the challenge, he said, is that cases take years to resolve, leading to lag time in awareness. “Then it kind of bubbles up and becomes a bigger issue and then you have multiple people suing.”

The city attorney’s office, which is responsible for defending the department against lawsuits, said in response to questions from The Times that cases are settled when “there could be a jury finding of liability, and when we can reach an agreement for a reasonable amount of money.”

“We will always do what is in the best interests of the city and continue to aggressively defend lawsuits—especially when plaintiffs’ attorneys try to make a fortune off of the City with unreasonable non-economic damages claims,” the city attorney’s office said in a statement. “Our office will aggressively defend against lawsuits that lack merit, as well as lawsuits in which the plaintiff’s attorney is making unreasonable demands for taxpayer dollars to resolve a case.”

The LAPD has long wrestled with costly litigation, and many claims by aggrieved officers are dismissed. But according to the data released to The Times, payouts for officer-driven lawsuits have increased recently: At least 13 verdicts or settlements worth $1 million or more have come since 2019, including nine in the last three years.

Beyond the cost to taxpayers, the public airing of workplace disputes can prove embarrassing to a department that has long fancied itself a spit-and-polish institution.

Take the Transit Services Division, where years of troubles and finger-pointing have led to a snarl of more than half a dozen lawsuits.

A former detective, Heather Rolland, received a $949,000 payout after she accused male colleagues of disparaging her for being injured on the job and of fostering a hostile work environment for women who worked in the division, which holds a lucrative contract with the county Metropolitan Transportation Authority to provide security on bus and train lines.

Among the male officials mentioned in her lawsuit is Randy Rangel, a former Transit Services sergeant, who filed his own claim against the city alleging he was retaliated against after reporting another officer for abusing his overtime pay. Last month, an L.A. County jury awarded him $4.5 million, which may still be challenged on appeal.

One of the witnesses who testified on Rangel’s behalf was his former captain, Brian Pratt, who also has a pending suit against the city. Pratt contends he was targeted with an anonymous personnel complaint after accusing a deputy chief of inappropriately using division staff to do nontransit work — a claim the city has denied in court filings.

The cycle of litigation continued with an internal affairs detective assigned to investigate Pratt. The detective alleged in a whistleblower claim that his bosses demanded unfavorable findings despite no evidence of wrongdoing. The lawsuit by Det. Hamilton Alvarenga also remains pending, with the city disputing his allegations.

Yet another Transit Services supervisor, Ashraf “Andy” Hanna, is pursuing legal action over what he alleged is a culture of anti-Arab discrimination. Hanna is also named as a defendant in several lawsuits, with co-workers accusing him of workplace hostility, which he disputes. One of his accusers, an officer named Natalie Bustamante, recently settled her sexual harassment lawsuit with the city for an undisclosed sum.

LAPD officers are supposed to report wrongdoing — or attempts to cover it up — to their supervisors, internal affairs or the Office of the Inspector General, which can investigate and potentially refer cases of misconduct to the chief for discipline. Those complaints are sealed from the public under state law, but the plaintiffs in several recent civil lawsuits alleged that the internal investigations tended to drag on unnecessarily and rarely led to punishment for the accused.

Attorney Matthew McNicholas, who has represented scores of officers in civil lawsuits, said he thinks that the growing payouts are a reflection of the city attorney’s hardball approach to civil litigation. This tough stance is costing taxpayers money by insisting on fighting cases even when it was clear they would lose in court, he said.

He pointed to the cases of Lou and Stacey Vince, a police couple who filed separate lawsuits against the department for retaliation and discrimination they faced while working in the San Fernando Valley. Lou Vince had alleged mistreatment after he returned from a work injury. In her claim, Stacey Vince said that after speaking up in her husband’s defense, she was denied a promotion and moved into a cramped office underneath the gym floor at the Police Academy with no furniture or Wi-Fi.

The couple, represented by McNicholas, received nearly $11 million in combined payouts.

“We tried to settle them both for low seven figures,” he said.

Joanna Schwartz, a UCLA law professor, said risk managers in L.A. and other cities should be looking for “policy changes or adjustments to staffing” after getting sued repeatedly.

“Best practices include internally investigating all allegations brought in lawsuits and then reviewing all the information that comes out during the course of discovery and trial,” Schwartz said.

The issue is not unique to the LAPD: Los Angeles County spent $150 million last year alone to defend the Sheriff’s Department from a slew of legal claims. And employment-related awards are only a fraction of the $358.8 million paid out in all LAPD lawsuits since 2019, including for traffic accidents, crackdowns on protesters and a botched fireworks detonation that leveled several city blocks and left dozens of residents displaced.

But the department’s handling of workplace complaints has drawn criticism on multiple fronts, including from the Los Angeles Police Protective League.

The union for rank-and-file officers, which sometimes helps members bring lawsuits, has cited the large verdicts as a sign senior LAPD officials are turning a blind eye to injustices in the workplace.

Last week, Jamie McBride, an outspoken union board member, filed a lawsuit in which he accused an assistant police chief of unfairly reprimanding him for speaking out about the LAPD’s grooming policy, the rules for how officers can keep their hair and mustaches.

McBride said in his suit that his remarks came during a union meeting in August 2023, when someone in the audience asked whether the department intended to change its rules to allow beards without a medical exemption, which is commonly granted to Black officers with skin conditions that make shaving painful.

McBride said he replied, “Well, I hope not ‘cause I think it looks like s—.”

He learned, according to his lawsuit, that that the department opened an investigation for what it deemed “racially discriminatory comments.”

McBride’s suit argues that his statement — “however controversial” — was made in the “context of protected union activity.”

The city has not yet filed a response in court to McBride’s claim. He didn’t respond to a message seeking comment.

McBride, who previously received $1.5 million after suing over alleged retaliation by his LAPD supervisors, is part of an internal work group looking at potential changes to the discipline system, along with Deputy Chief Michael Rimkunas, who runs the department’s professional standards bureau.

Rimkunas defended the department’s “thorough and comprehensive process” for addressing officer complaints, but said he is also pushing for “additional safeguards to be certain the complaint system is properly used.”

He said internal investigators are being more judicious about screening complaints before starting a formal inquiry. Cases involving apparent personality conflicts between employees are referred back to their supervisors for mediation “within weeks, even when the behavior may not have reached the level of misconduct,” he said.

It used to take up to a year, Rimkunas said, to “reach a point for potential intervention.”