sues

Former Los Angeles Fire Chief Kristin Crowley is suing the city, claiming in a whistleblower lawsuit that Mayor Karen Bass “orchestrated a campaign of retaliation” to protect her own political future and paper over her failures during the most destructive fire in city history.

In the lawsuit, filed Monday in L.A. County Superior Court, Crowley and her attorneys allege Bass sought to shift blame for the way the city handled last year’s catastrophic Palisades fire to Crowley amid mounting criticism of the mayor’s decision to attend a ceremony in Ghana on Jan. 7, the day the fire erupted. Bass, the suit alleges, left L.A. despite knowing of the potential severe winds and fire danger.

“She sought to avoid accountability by shifting blame and lying — including falsely claiming that she was not aware of the nationally anticipated weather event, falsely claiming that the LAFD’s budget was not cut, and falsely claiming that LAFD’s resources would have supported an additional 1,000 firefighters to fight the blaze — claims contradicted by public records and Bass’ own prior statements,” the lawsuit alleges. “These false statements were not mistakes but part of a deliberate strategy to divert scrutiny from Bass’ decisions and to avoid accountability.”

The Palisades fire took off the morning of Jan. 7, 2025 amid fierce Santa Ana winds, killing 12 people and destroying thousands of homes amounting to billions of dollars in damage. While authorities allege a Florida man started the fire, saying it was actually a rekindling of a Jan. 1 fire, decisions by both LAFD brass and the mayor before, during and after Jan. 7 have come under scrutiny.

According to records obtained by The Times, shortly before releasing an after-action review report on the Palisades fire, the Los Angeles Fire Department issued a confidential memo detailing plans to protect Bass and others from “reputational harm.” The 13-page document is on LAFD letterhead and includes email addresses for department officials, representatives of Bass’ office, and public relations consultants hired to help shape messaging about the fire.

But as questions about the fire response swirled, instead of getting in lockstep with Bass, Crowley revealed to the public that “budget cuts had weakened the department’s readiness and jeopardized public and firefighter safety” and said her repeated warnings were ignored, the lawsuit says. It alleges Bass retaliated by ousting her as fire chief on Feb. 21, 2025.

Since the fire, the city has faced criticism for an inadequate deployment of firefighters, a chaotic evacuation of Pacific Palisades and a lack of water caused in part by a local reservoir being left empty for repairs. In December, The Times revealed that the city’s after-action report had been altered to deflect criticism of LAFD’s failure to predeploy engines and crews to the Palisades, among other shortcomings.

Crowley’s lawyers claim Bass’ view of her performance shifted with political opinion — starting with initial praise before reversing course and criticizing Crowley as the mayor came under fire for being out of the country during the blaze.

The mayor’s office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

When Crowley was ousted, the mayor said it was because Crowley failed to inform her about the dangerous conditions that day or to predeploy hundreds of firefighters just in case. She also said Crowley rebuffed a request to prepare a report on the fires — a critical part of ongoing investigations into the cause of the fire and the city’s response.

But Crowley’s lawyers, Genie Harrison and Mia Munro, allege their client “repeatedly warned of the LAFD’s worsening resource and staffing crisis” prior to the fire and warned that aging infrastructure, surging emergency calls and shrinking staff left the city at risk.

“An analysis of the 90th percentile of all incidents indicates that the overall response time of LAFD resources has increased from 6:51 (minutes) in 2018 to 7:53 in 2022. This dramatic increase is nearly double the time by national standards for first-arriving units,” the lawsuit says.

Three days after the fire, Crowley told a local TV news station that her department was “screaming to be properly funded,” which prompted Bass to summon Crowley to her office, according to the lawsuit.

“I don’t know why you had to do that; normally we are on the same page, and I don’t know why you had to say stuff to the media,” Bass told Crowley, according to the lawsuit. Bass allegedly told Crowley she wasn’t firing her then because “right now I can’t do that.”

Before Crowley was ousted, the city’s top financial analyst pushed back on her budget-cutting narrative, saying that spending on the Fire Department actually went up during that budget year — in large part because of a package of firefighter raises. Those increases added an estimated $53 million to the department’s budget.

Regardless, the day after Crowley and Bass met in her office, the lawsuit alleges, retired LAFD Chief Deputy Ronnie Villanueva began working at the Emergency Operations Center, donning a mayor’s office badge. On Feb. 3, 2025, more than two weeks before Crowley was removed from her position, Villanueva wrote a report to the Board of Fire Commissioners identifying himself as the interim fire chief — a position he held until the appointment of Fire Chief Jaime Moore last fall.

The lawsuit alleges that Bass and others in her administration defamed Crowley, retaliated against her in violation of California’s labor code and violated Crowley’s 1st Amendment rights. Crowley is seeking unspecified damages.

Bass repeatedly has denied she was involved in any effort to water down the after-action report, which was meant to spell out mistakes in the Palisades fire response and suggest measures to avoid repeating them. But two sources with knowledge of Bass’ office said that after receiving an early draft of the report, the mayor told Villanueva it could expose the city to legal liabilities.

Bass wanted key findings about the LAFD’s actions removed or softened before the report was made public, the sources told The Times this month. The mayor has said The Times’ story based on the sources’ accounts was “completely fabricated.”

Crowley and her lawyers allege the LAFD “did not have sufficient operating emergency vehicles to safely and effectively pre-deploy 1,000 (or anywhere near 1,000) additional firefighters on January 7.” The department did not have the money or personnel “to repair and maintain emergency fire engines, fire trucks, and ambulances,” the suit alleges.

“This case is about accountability,” said Harrison, Crowley’s attorney. “Public servants should not face punishment or be silenced for telling the truth about public or firefighter safety and on matters of public importance.”

Times staff writers Alene Tcheckmedyian, David Zahniser and Paul Pringle contributed to this report. Pringle is a former Times staff writer.

Feb. 13 (UPI) — The Department of Justice sued Harvard University on Friday for failing to hand over documents for an investigation into whether its admissions process discriminates against white people.

The Justice Department said its investigation is to determine if the Ivy League school is complying with the 2023 Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action in higher education admissions. The investigation was launched in April and was to determine if the school’s admissions process for its undergraduate, law and medical schools follows the decision.

Harvard has said it follows the Supreme Court ruling.

“Under President [Donald] Trump’s leadership, this Department of Justice is demanding better from our nation’s educational institutions,” The Hill reported Attorney General Pam Bondi said. “Harvard has failed to disclose the data we need to ensure that its admissions are free of discrimination — we will continue fighting to put merit over DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] across America.”

The university responded that it is responding to the government according to the law.

“Harvard has been responding to the government’s inquiries in good faith and continues to be willing to engage with the government according to the process required by law,” a Harvard spokesperson said. “The University will continue to defend itself against these retaliatory actions which have been initiated simply because Harvard refused to surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights in response to unlawful government overreach.”

The Trump administration had been working with Harvard to arrange a deal after the administration was seeking $500 million and reforms from the school, to end the pressure campaign, which included a freeze on more than $2 billion in funding, a civil rights investigation and regulatory changes.

On Feb. 2, The New York Times published a story that said Trump had agreed to drop a demand for $200 million to finalize the deal. That night, Trump made a series of posts on Truth Social saying he wanted a criminal investigation of the university and increased the demand to $1 billion.

On Feb. 7, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced that the Pentagon would end its academic partnership with Harvard, calling it a “woke” institution that is not welcoming to the U.S. military.

Floyd Mayweather Jr., one of history’s most successful professional boxers, is suing Showtime and a former executive at the company for $340 million, accusing them of depriving him of a “significant portion of his career earnings.”

The 48-year-old retired athlete alleges in the complaint that Showtime “through a complex web of hidden accounts, unauthorized transactions, and deliberate concealment of financial records,” wrongly paid some of his earnings to his former manager, Al Haymon.

The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, is aimed at the Paramount-owned network and its former president of Showtime Sports, Stephen Espinoza. The complaint alleges that Mayweather’s inquiries about his pay were met with conflicting responses from Showtime, including that “critical financial records for Mayweather’s biggest fights were ‘lost’ or inaccessible.”

Haymon is not named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

A spokesperson for Paramount wrote in a statement to The Times that “these baseless claims lack legal or factual merit. We strongly reject them and will respond accordingly through the court process.”

A spokesperson for Haymon Boxing declined to comment on the lawsuit.

Over Mayweather’s 21-year career, the boxer has reportedly earned $1.2 billion. He first met his former manager, Haymon, in 2004. The boxer soon entered a verbal agreement with Haymon, allowing him to be Mayweather’s manager for a 10% fee. According to the suit, Mayweather considered Haymon to be a “father figure and relied on him to manage virtually all aspects of his finances and contracts.” Haymon worked in this role for about 20 years, and over time, the suit alleges, he became the “mastermind of the financial scheme,” engaging in “financial manipulation and self-dealing behind Mayweather’s back.”

In 2013, Mayweather exited a long-term contract with HBO to ink a new exclusive multi-fight deal with Showtime. The complaint states that Haymon’s “scheme” consisted of “diverting portions” of Mayweather’s earnings “under false pretenses that Haymon then kept or controlled,” putting fight revenues into “secret accounts that Mayweather did not know about or have access to,” paying himself large sums of money without Mayweather‘s knowledge and allegedly altering documents to cover up these actions.

Mayweather’s new team reached out to Showtime in 2024 for documentation of fight revenues and expenses. According to the lawsuit, his team was told the documents were “‘lost in a flood’ or stored off-site and not readily accessible.”

Mayweather also alleges Showtime still owes him $20 million from his 2015 fight against Andre Berto. The payout was originally meant to come from the proceeds of the Manny Pacquiao fight that year.

The lawsuit contends that by wiring Mayweather’s earnings to accounts inaccessible tothe boxer and saying that key documents are missing, both “Showtime and Espinoza enabled Haymon’s scheme and stymied Mayweather’s efforts to uncover the truth.”

The Pasadena Jewish Temple and Center filed a lawsuit against Southern California Edison Tuesday, claiming the electric company was to blame for igniting last year’s Eaton fire, which destroyed the congregation’s historic sanctuary, preschool and other buildings.

“Our congregation has been without a physical home for more than a year, at a time when our members had the deepest need for refuge and healing,” Senior Rabbi Joshua Ratner said in a statement. “While we’ve continued to gather and support one another, the loss is deeply felt.”

David Eisenhauer, an Edison spokesman, said the company would respond to the complaint through the court process.

“Our hearts remain with the people affected by the Eaton fire,” Eisenhauer said. “We remain committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness and enhanced operational practices.”

The temple had served hundreds of Jewish families since 1941. Congregation members were able to save little more than its sacred Torah scrolls.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, claims Edison failed to follow its own safety protocols despite advance warnings of extremely dangerous red flag conditions in an area known to be at high threat of wildfires.

The complaint points to the utility’s failure to de-energize its transmission lines that night, as well as its decision to leave up a decommissioned line that hadn’t carried electricity for decades.

It also cites a Times investigation that found that Edison fell behind in doing maintenance that it told state regulators was needed and began billing customers for.

“SCE’s maintenance backlog and unutilized maintenance funds show that it was highly likely that the subject electrical infrastructure that ignited the Eaton Fire was improperly inspected, maintained, repaired, and otherwise operated, which foreseeably led to the Eaton Fire’s ignition,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks financial compensation for destruction of the campus, as well as injunctive relief aimed at preventing Edison from causing more wildfires in the future.

The government investigation into the cause of the fire has not yet been released.

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, has said that a leading theory is that a century-old, dormant transmission line in Eaton Canyon briefly became energized that night, causing sparks that ignited the fire.

Edison is already facing hundreds of lawsuits from fire victims, as well as one by the U.S. Department of Justice. The utility is offering compensation to victims who agree to give up their right to sue the company for the blaze.

Under California law, most of those payments, as well as the lawsuit settlements, are expected to be covered by a state wildfire fund that lawmakers created to shield the three biggest for-profit utilities from bankruptcy if their equipment ignites a catastrophic fire. Some wildfire victims say the law has gone too far and doesn’t keep the utilities accountable for their mistakes.

The temple’s lawsuit details how investigators have found Edison’s equipment to have caused multiple wildfires in the last 10 years, including the the Round Fire in 2015, the Rey Fire in 2016, the Thomas, Creek, and Rye fires in 2017,and the Woolsey Fire in 2018.

Investigators also found that Edison’s power lines sparked the Fairview fire in 2022, which killed two people.

Rwanda began the inter-state arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November.

Rwanda has taken legal action against the United Kingdom’s refusal to disburse payments under a now-scrapped, controversial agreement for Kigali to receive deported asylum seekers, according to a Rwandan official and UK media reports.

Rwanda launched arbitral proceedings against the UK through the Hague-based Permanent Court of Arbitration on Tuesday. It is seeking 50 million pounds ($68.8m) in compensation after the UK failed to formally terminate the controversial agreement about two years ago, The Telegraph newspaper reported.

“Rwanda regrets that it has been necessary to pursue these claims in arbitration, but faced with the United Kingdom’s intransigence on these issues, it has been left with no other choice,” Michael Butera, chief technical adviser to the minister of justice, told the AFP news agency.

Butera added that Kigali had sought diplomatic engagement before resorting to legal action.

The programme to remove to East Africa some people who had arrived in the UK via small boats was agreed upon in a treaty between London and Kilgali. It was intended as a deterrent for those wanting to come to the UK in the same manner.

However, just four volunteers ultimately arrived in Rwanda.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer scrapped the deal – brokered by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Conservative government in 2022 – when he took office in July 2024, declaring it “dead and buried”.

London had already paid Kigali 240 million pounds ($330.9m) before the agreement was abandoned, with a further 50 million pounds ($68.9m) due in April.

Starmer’s official spokesman told reporters on Tuesday, “We will robustly defend our position to protect British taxpayers.”

Last year, the UK suspended most financial aid to Rwanda for backing the M23 group’s offensive in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kigali labelled the move “punitive”.

The agreement faced a string of legal challenges, culminating in a November 2023 ruling by the UK Supreme Court that it was illegal under international law.

Rwanda began the interstate arbitration proceedings under the asylum partnership agreement in November, according to the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s website, which lists the case status as pending.

Immigration has been an increasingly central political issue since the UK left the European Union in 2020, largely on a promise to “take back control” of the country’s borders.

Some 37,000 asylum seekers, including people fleeing Syria and Afghanistan, crossed the English Channel in 2024, and more than 40,000 in 2025 – the highest number since 2022, when nearly 46,000 people crossed. Dozens have died attempting the journey.

The UK government says it has removed 50,000 undocumented people living in the country.

In September, the UK and France implemented a “one-in-one-out” migrant deal aimed at returning asylum seekers to France while accepting those with UK family ties. However, the policy has faced criticism regarding its effectiveness. NGOs and charity groups have also described the scheme as a “cruel” move designed to restrict asylum rights.