same time

Premiering Sunday at midnight on Adult Swim, a most appropriate and maybe the only possible space, “The Terrors of Jordan Mendoza” is, as its creator describes it in a prologue, “a ‘Twilight Zone’ sketch show,” which is just what I would have said after watching eight of its 13 11-minute episodes, had he not said it first. Emphasizing its Asian bonafides — Mendoza is Filipino American — he adds, “It would be almost racist if you didn’t do it.”

Mendoza, who stars in, directs and, with David Machajewski, writes the show, has said that some of the ideas come from actual dreams — the “terrors” in the titles are nightmares — though if my own dream life is anything to go by, the jokes are more clever and the narratives at once weirder and more cohesive. At various times it recalls the eeriness of David Lynch or the non sequitur logic of Luis Bunuel, and it has something of the flavor of “The Vince Staples Show,” which also went to some strange places in its too-short life.

Sketches, of varying lengths, build a central idea out in every direction, and a little farther than you might expect. We meet a therapist obsessed with Wendy’s. Batman, convinced that he has adult ADHD because an online quiz told him so (“I know a lot of people claim they have ADHD,” he tells Alfred, “but in my case I think I really do … I’m creative but easily overwhelmed, organized but at the same time not”). A dying man (Steve Buscemi) is obsessed with getting his last words right; a prisoner is sentenced to “15 hugs and kisses” from the “nearest judge.” A bank robber holding hostages demands to be “a famous snake … and if you can’t get on board with that then everyone in here is going to die.” In a horror movie pastiche, Mendoza is dogged by middle-aged white men compelled to tell him that their wife is Asian, which does sound like something from personal experience.

Wherever the comedy goes, it’s played straight and with intensity, as is the terror. The show can be genuinely disturbing and genuinely funny. (Two things can be true at once.) There’s also a scene in which Mendoza, playing a character convinced he’s a Harry Potter wizard, runs into a brick wall he thinks he’ll pass through, and, there’s nothing more liable to make me laugh than that, unless it’s someone hitting their head on a low door frame or suddenly falling over for any number of non-fatal reasons.

Mendoza, who is in his mid-30s, has a string of writing and acting credits, including writing for “Dave,” Dave Burd’s comedy about a suburban Jew from Philadelphia who believes himself destined for rap greatness, and parts in Julio Torres’ “Problemista” and “Fantasmas,” which are located in the same hemisphere of alternative comedy. He has the Rolodex of a well-connected person; the guest list is impressively loaded for someone making his first show.

The great Martha Kelly (from “Baskets”) plays a masseuse who exteriorizes her client’s pain, and in another sketch, she’s a woman sitting in on a confirmation class in order to learn where Jesus might be “lodging” when he returns. (She has a plan.) Kate Berlant invites Mendoza to what turns out to be a one-woman poetry slam, held in secret to avoid the Slammers Union (“They’re like the Sopranos, only violent”). Chris Parnell, Randall Park, Wanda Sykes, Thomas Lennon, Clea DuVall, Lake Bell, Toby Huss, Mark Maron, Fred Armisen and Gregg Turkington (from the world of “On Cinema at the Cinema”) all muck in.

You should know from the above whether this might be your sort of thing. (It won’t be everyone’s, but it’s definitely up my dark, crooked alley.) But, really, it’s even better than these descriptions might lead you to guess, elevated by the first-class production, assured performances (Mendoza is himself very good) and everyone’s commitment to whatever bit is up at the time. The devilishness is in the details.

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.