suit

Back in the worst pandemic days of 2020, Elizabeth Garo and Melanie Tusquellas were terrified they would lose their nightclub.

The co-owners of the Alibi — an independent music venue with space for up to 300 people in downtown Palm Springs — opened in late 2019, just before COVID-19 shut down the live music scene.

Garo was a former booker for the Regent, Echo and Echoplex in L.A. (She also opened Stories Books in Echo Park.) Tusquellas was a hospitality veteran behind Los Feliz’s El Chavo and Silver Lake’s historic Edendale restaurant. The two said they had invested hundreds of thousands into renovating and opening the Alibi.

“It’s difficult to run a small independent venue any time, and during COVID it was particularly hard,” Garo recalled in an interview. “A lot of them didn’t make it.”

Garo heard that Marc Geiger, then a WME music executive she had known and worked with for decades, and former WME board member John Fogelman had founded Save Live, a company investing in independent venues to help them survive the pandemic.

When Save Live offered to buy 51% of the Alibi and let the co-founders continue to run it, the deal “felt like such a relief,” Garo said. “It felt like a lifeline, like, ’Hey, we’re gonna make it.’”

Instead, Garo and Tusquellas claim in a 2023 lawsuit and an interview with The Times that the partnership ruined them. Their lawsuit, which seeks compensatory damages, alleges that Geiger and Fogelman negotiated the deal in bad faith, forcing them out of the company’s operations soon after the purchase. After briefly reopening in 2022, the club permanently closed later that year. A trial is set for August.

Attorneys for Save Live, which has since rebranded as Gate 52, declined to comment when reached by email.

In a cross-complaint to the suit, Geiger and Fogelman say Save Live “bent over backwards to try to resolve the parties’ differences” and call Garo and Tusquellas’ claims “salacious — and utterly false — allegations of misogyny and bad faith.”

The suit raises questions about the future of local indie music venues like the Alibi and about Save Live’s intentions. Does the firm rescue troubled venues or capitalize on their financial vulnerability?

Gate 52 now owns 13 music venues across the country, including Electric City in Buffalo, N.Y., the Eagles Ballroom in Milwaukee and the Criterion in Oklahoma City. In California, the firm owns the Fremont Theater in San Luis Obispo and the Golden State Theatre in Monterey, and collaborates with dozens more “network venues” across the country.

The firm is a far cry from giants like Live Nation or AEG. But as a well-capitalized operation that has acquired majority stakes in struggling small venues, it has become a significant player in secondary markets.

The two-story, Spanish colonial-style building that would become the Alibi first opened as a switchboard hub for the GE Telephone Co. in the 1920s. Later, it became Georgie’s Alibi Azul, a popular gay bar and restaurant.

In 2018, Garo and Tusquellas, both wisecracking Gen X veterans of L.A. nightlife, were looking for “a swan song” for their careers, as Tusquellas described it. Garo, one of the most influential talent bookers in L.A. for decades, had been laid off from Live Nation after the mega-promoter bought local promoter Spaceland Presents.

After touring the Alibi, Garo and Tusquellas saw potential for a venue like the ones they’d built in L.A., a place to book local and global artists in a creatively adapted old building.

“We were surprised by how chic and international Palm Springs was becoming,” Tusquellas added. “Growing up in L.A., when we went to Palm Springs as kids, it was like God’s waiting room. But we were quite surprised by this scene with all these local musicians but no venues to play at.”

Alibi soft-launched with packed Pride events in fall 2019 (to avoid the summer heat), and formally opened in October. With its glazed-tile outdoor bar and emerald-hued mood lighting, the venue was a chic standout in desert nightlife.

“We had everything from ‘Dynasty’ theme parties to Modernism Week events,” Tusquellas said. “We had a goth night. There had never been a place to go for them in Palm Springs and they came out of the woodwork.”

Local musicians hoped the venue would be transformative for their scene.

“Alibi was the first place where we got a taste of the real deal,” said Spencer Stange of the band Host Family, which booked a monthly night of experimental music at Alibi. “It was the only venue I knew there that was legitimate and professional. Good bands played there and you could do a real sound check. They were so hospitable, it felt like a home base.”

Louise Minnick, a local promoter with Lesbo Expo, said Alibi was an important venue for queer women in the desert.

“Liz and Melanie went out of their way to make our events special,” Minnick said. “They offered their patio for women to have first access to watch Pride, which meant a lot to me.”

Five months later, the pandemic annihilated those plans.

Garo and Tusquellas said their company, 369 Palm Inc., was too new to access the federal patchwork of Paycheck Protection Program loans. They eventually got a grant from the National Independent Venue Assn., but it was for only $20,000. According to a slide deck cited in Save Live’s cross-complaint, the venue had $250,000 in outstanding bills from the shutdown.

“We used all our savings to pay the rent,” Tusquellas added. “We’re entrepreneurs who are not funded by big people, so we had to pay the $15,000 a month rent ourselves for a year and a half. It was really hard.”

Meanwhile, Save Live launched in 2020 with $135 million raised from venture capital firms and a clear mission: to buy majority stakes in small clubs.

“Save Live’s business model was to invest in local, independent, ‘mom and pop’ live music venues, providing critically needed financial relief and funds to renovate dated facilities to bring them back stronger than ever before,” the company says in its cross-complaint.

Save Live’s founders were well-known in L.A. entertainment. Geiger co-founded the Lollapalooza festival and led WME’s music division from 2003 until 2020. Fogelman was the former head of motion pictures at William Morris Agency and a founding board member when it merged with Endeavor to become WME. The Alibi was one of Save Live’s first venue deals.

“Being able to partner with Save Live is a dream come true,” Garo said in a 2021 announcement. The deal let the two owners “stay true to our roots knowing we have their full support. … It doesn’t hurt that we’ve known some of the people at Save Live for years — we all came up through the business together.”

“I didn’t know Marc at all, but he was very charming,” Tusquellas said. “He and Fogelman were titans of the industry. We felt that we were in very good hands. We knew what we were doing, and they knew that.”

According to the suit and cross-complaint, Garo and Tusquellas’ company, 369 Palm Inc. (with partner David Gold), agreed to sell 51% of their ownership of the Alibi’s business to Save Live for $400,000. The Alibi’s business would be co-owned under a new company, Alibi Venue Operations LLC. Garo and Tusquellas say in their suit that, under this agreement, the pair and Geiger “would have decision-making authority over the day-to-day operations.”

Garo and Tusquellas claim in their suit that 369 Palm “retained 100% ownership of [the Alibi’s] ABC liquor license” and would continue to manage the venue’s bar. Save Live agreed to provide $565,000 for renovations and expenses, according to Save Live’s cross-complaint.

Garo and Tusquellas’ suit claims that Save Live had “hatched a plan to exploit the weakness in the independent live music industry to try, by means of deception and then intimidation, to acquire The Alibi and its business without paying a fair price.”

Scott Timberlake, the Alibi building’s landlord, said he had a friendly relationship with Garo and Tusquellas. But once Save Live got involved, he said, “I was really surprised by Save Live’s ego and entitlement. When I asked to see their financial statements before taking over the lease, they lectured me about ‘Don’t you know who we are?’”

Garo and Tusquellas say in their suit that, when the venue reopened on April 1, 2022, “SL Alibi acted as if it were the sole owner.” They claim in their suit that Geiger and Fogelman contracted with an outside ticketing company, Tixr, without Garo’s consent, and that Save Live didn’t sufficiently fund day-to-day operations. Garo and Tusquellas claim in their suit that Save Live switched to its own accountant for bookkeeping and backed out of a plan to hire a general manager.

In its cross-complaint, Save Live says that “contrary to the claims in their lawsuit, Save Live did not try to take over the Venue.” Save Live says “Tusquellas and Garo had gone significantly over the pre-opening budget, resulting in … an operating budget shortfall.”

According to Save Live’s cross-complaint, private investigators discovered “a separate, undisclosed cash register used only for cash transactions … there was no record, whatsoever, of any such sales.” The cross-complaint alleges that Tusquellas “embezzled most of (if not all) of the cash sale proceeds.”

Tusquellas denied the embezzlement claims, saying all sales, including cash, were accounted for and reported as income.

Save Live says in its cross-complaint that both parties “always understood and intended for 369 to transfer” the venue’s valuable liquor license, and called Garo and Tusquellas’ refusal to do so “a ruse to get Save Live’s money.”

Garo and Tusquellas said they never sold, or intended to sell, the venue’s liquor license. “That may have been part of Save Live’s secret plan,” said 369 Palm’s lawyer, David Sergenian. “But that was never agreed to.”

On July 13, 2022, Garo and Tusquellas’ lawsuit says “Geiger and Fogelman called a meeting of the Board … as a pretense to ambush Tusquellas and Garo with false accusations. Geiger and Fogelman…falsely accus[ed] Tusquellas of embezzling funds from the company to enrich herself.”

“Fogelman aggressively threw a chair to the ground, as he raged,” the suit says. “Tusquellas and Garo were appalled by Fogelman’s shocking behavior and scared for their future, as he was threatening to ruin the business by shutting down The Alibi.”

Garo and Tusquellas’ suit claims Geiger and Fogelman ordered the venue shut down and that Garo and Tusquellas be removed from operations with their salaries cut off. The bar staff would be fired and 369 Palm’s concessionaire agreement canceled, according to the suit.

The Alibi closed on July 25, 2022. It never reopened.

The situation at the Alibi echoes the tumult surrounding the ownership of the beloved Pioneertown venue Pappy & Harriet’s. Starting in 2021, Knitting Factory Chief Executive Morgan Margolis and partners Stephen Hendel and John Chapman battled the venue’s co-partners, Joseph Moresco and Lisa Elin, about who controlled the operations at the rustic venue, where acts as big as Paul McCartney and Robert Plant have played in addition to hardscrabble desert locals. Margolis prevailed in late 2024.

Meanwhile, the new Acrisure Arena, built by mega-manager Irving Azoff and former AEG President Tim Leiweke, attracts A-list pop, rock and Latin acts to Palm Springs. The nearby Yaamava’ resort has spent millions on top talent.

“It’s great to have an influx of money and big artists at venues like Acrisure Arena that helps the Valley feel bigger. But losing small venues is detrimental and cuts away at the uniqueness of the experiences people have here,” said Kristen Dolan, executive director of the California Desert Arts Council, a nonprofit group advocating for cultural development in the Coachella Valley.

“Places like Alibi have a bigger impact than people think. The workforce here is largely in hospitality, and clubs like the Alibi are important places to start out,” Dolan said. “People were really upset when the Alibi closed, and it was heartbreaking for artists cultivating their community. The economy here is unstable right now and I hope we don’t lose more small venues like it.”

Former Alibi owners Liz Garo, left, and Melanie Tusquellas at Silver Lake’s Edendale restaurant.

(Annie Noelker / For The Times)

The post-pandemic future for such independent live venues is unsettled. Nonprofits like NIVA were effective advocates for legislation (like the $16.25 billion Shuttered Venue Operators Grant, a federal program that gave money to struggling venues) and fundraising, and concert attendance boomed once venues reopened. But inflation, reduced tourism and a volatile economy threaten to keep fans home.

“What word describes our situation right now? I would offer that one word is ‘unknown,” NIVA’s executive director Stephen Parker said at the group’s 2024 conference. “Forty years ago, independent stages were the norm, now multinational, publicly traded conglomerates are. Everyone in this room knows that competition is a misnomer and the increasing lack of it is, perhaps, our greatest threat.”

Meanwhile, Garo and Tusquellas have returned to L.A., picking up the pieces at an unexpectedly late phase of their careers. Garo will book shows at a new independent Yucca Valley venue, Mojave Gold.

Building owner Timberlake said that after months of fighting with Save Live over the venue’s debts, he accepted a settlement, and a new restaurant tenant has moved into the Alibi.

“I didn’t have the financial capability of fighting someone like Save Live,” he said. “It was just so unnecessarily negative.”

No matter how the August trial ends, Garo and Tusquellas are facing the same headwinds as the rest of the live industry. Only now, they are truly on their own.

“I have lots of ideas,” Garo said. “But that’s all kind of locked up until we get this resolved. I don’t want this to be my final chapter.”

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.

Alleging widespread and egregious violations of housing and tenant laws, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta sued Southern California real estate tycoon Mike Nijjar in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Thursday.

In the lawsuit, Bonta accused Nijjar, family members and their companies of subjecting tenants to vermin infestations and overflowing sewage, overcharging them and violating anti-discrimination laws.

The suit says that Nijjar is one of California’s largest landlords, operating multibillion dollars in holdings. Nijjar family companies, commonly known as PAMA Management, own 22,000 rental units, primarily in low-income neighborhoods in Southern California.

The suit follows a more than two-year California Department of Justice investigation into Nijjar’s holdings, Bonta said.

“PAMA and the companies owned by Mike Nijjar and his family are notorious for their rampant, slum-like conditions — some so bad that residents have suffered tragic results,” Bonta said in a statement. “Our investigation into Nijjar’s properties revealed PAMA exploited vulnerable families, refusing to invest the resources needed to eradicate pest infestations, fix outdated roofs and install functioning plumbing systems, all while deceiving tenants about their rights to sue their landlord and demand repairs.”

Bonta is seeking penalties against Nijjar and his family business entities, restitution for tenants, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and injunctive relief barring Nijjar and PAMA from continuing unlawful business practices.

A representative for Nijjar said he forcefully rejects the claims in the lawsuit.

“The allegations in the complaint are false and misleading, and its claims are legally erroneous,” Nijjar attorney Stephen Larson said in a statement. “We look forward to demonstrating in court that Mr. Nijjar and his companies are not only compliant with the law, but they provide an extraordinary service to housing those disadvantaged and underserved by California’s public and private housing markets.”

Nijjar’s real estate empire has long been on authorities’ radar.

In 2020, LAist detailed wide-ranging dangerous conditions at Nijjar’s properties dating back years, including a fire at a PAMA-owned mobile home in Kern County that resulted in the death of an infant. The mobile home was not permitted for human occupancy, according to the report and Bonta’s lawsuit. Two years later, The Times wrote a series of stories about Chesapeake Apartments, a sprawling 425-unit apartment complex in South L.A., where Nijjar’s tenants complained of sewage discharges, regular mold and vermin infestations and shoddy repairs. Chesapeake had the most public health violations of any residential property in L.A. County over the previous five years, according to a Times analysis at the time.

Prior attempts at accountability for Nijjar and his companies have been spotty and ineffective. After the 2016 mobile home fire that killed the infant in Kern County, the California Department of Real Estate revoked the licenses associated with Nijjar’s company at the time. In response, Nijjar and family members reorganized their business structure, the suit said.

The L.A. city attorney’s office resolved a nuisance abatement complaint against PAMA at Chesapeake in 2018, only for the widespread habitability problems to emerge. A similar case filed by the city attorney’s office against a PAMA property in Hollywood remains in litigation more than three years after it was filed. In the meantime, Nijjar’s companies have settled multiple habitability lawsuits filed by residents.

Bonta said that PAMA has taken advantage of lax and piecemeal accountability efforts and its low-income tenants’ vulnerability. Most residents, he said, have low or fixed incomes with few alternatives other than to endure the shoddy conditions in their rentals.

The lawsuit alleges that the habitability problems at PAMA properties are “ongoing business practices” — the result of decisions to make cheap repairs rather than necessary investments in maintenance, the use of unskilled handymen, lack of staff training and failure to track tenant requests.

“Nijjar and his associates have treated lawsuit after lawsuit and code violation after code violation as the cost of doing business and have been allowed to operate and collect hundreds of millions of dollars each year from families who sleep, shower, and feed their children in unhealthy and deplorable conditions,” Bonta said. “Enough is enough.”

Besides tenants’ living conditions, the suit alleges Nijjar and PAMA have induced residents into deceptive leases, discriminated against tenants on public assistance programs and issued unlawful rent increases.

The suit contends PAMA’s leases attempt to invalidate rights guaranteed under law, including the opportunity to sue and make repairs the landlord neglected and deduct these costs from the rent. The company has told Section 8 voucher holders that there are no units available when others are being rented to applicants without vouchers, the complaint said.

The case alleges that PAMA has violated California’s rent cap law on more than 2,000 occasions. The law limits rent increases to 5% plus inflation annually at most apartments. PAMA, the suit says, shifted mandatory shared utility costs, which used to be paid by the landlord, onto tenants’ bills in an attempt to evade the cap. The combination of the new utility costs and rent hikes resulted in total increases of up to 20%, more than double the allowable amount, according to the suit.

There’s a line in Eric Coomer’s defamation lawsuit against Mike Lindell, the MyPillow guy, that strikes me as the perfect description of what happens when influential partisans belch lies about innocent people in these insanely charged political times:

“The real world consequences for the subjects of those lies,” says the lawsuit, “have been devastating.”

Indeed.

Think of Georgia poll workers Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, whose lives were destroyed when Rudy Giuliani, once President Trump’s top campaign lawyer, claimed the pair had rigged the 2020 election outcome in their state. Giuliani even invented a blatantly racist story about the women passing drugs to each other at their Fulton County polling place. Trump amplified the claims. The two women received death threats, were loath to leave home even for groceries and had to go into hiding. I will never forget how sad and broken they seemed during their testimony before the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Happily, Freeman and Moss won a $148-million settlement from Giuliani, leading the former New York mayor to unsuccessfully sue for bankruptcy in an effort to dodge his obligation. Now stripped of his license to practice law in New York, Giuliani has fallen so far he’s not even a punchline on late night TV anymore.

Just like Freeman and Moss, Coomer, the former director of product strategy and security for Dominion Voting Systems, was subjected to a torrent of false claims about election rigging by Lindell and other right-wing conspiracy theorists and media outlets. Like Freeman and Moss, he was terrorized and driven into hiding.

He left his job, moved to a new location, placed guns around the house he borrowed from a friend, experienced depression and panic attacks, and believes he will not be able to return to his profession.

“People were essentially taking bets on how my brother’s corpse would be found and which nefarious shadow group would be behind his death,” Coomer’s brother told the New York Times in 2021. “He would be executed by the state or he would be found with a falsified suicide note and two gunshots in the back of his head.”

Coomer, like others, became collateral damage in the misbegotten MAGA campaign to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Fox News hosts, including Sean Hannity, Jeanine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, completely lost their minds, and the company allowed its highest-profile stars to spew lie after lie about the election in general and Dominion Voting Systems in particular, knowing full well (as News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch admitted under oath) that Dominion was blameless and that Joe Biden had won fair and square.

That unsavory chapter ended up costing Fox $787.5 million in a settlement to Dominion, which allowed the right-wing network to avert a trial.

Coomer, who has filed lawsuits against Giuliani and several others who spread lies about him, now gets his day in court against Lindell. The defamation trial, which began Monday, is expected to last through the end of this week. (Coomer settled suits against conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell; Newsmax; One America News Network, or OAN; and an OAN correspondent. His suit against Guiliani is pending.)

The false claims against Coomer were dreamed up by a conservative Colorado podcaster, Joseph Oltmann, who told listeners that he had infiltrated an “Antifa conference call” in which “Eric, the Dominion guy” claimed to have rigged the election against Trump. (Coomer’s defamation suit against Oltmann is also pending.)

“Oltmann,” says Coomer’s lawsuit, “claimed this supposed call happened on some unspecified date months before the election, but that he did not think to take action until after the election was called for President Biden …. Oltmann’s story is inherently implausible.”

Not to mention, outlandish and preposterous.

In his campaign against Coomer, Oltmann posted a photo of the Dominion executive’s home on his social media and urged his followers to “blow this sh— up. Share, put his name everywhere. No rest for this sh—bag … Eric we are watching you.”

Lindell, who seems never to have come across a right-wing conspiracy theory he couldn’t embrace, picked up on Oltmann’s fantasies about Coomer and began spreading them far and wide — in interviews, on his website, in social media, etc.

On his FrankSpeech media platform, Lindell addressed Coomer directly: “You are disgusting and you are treasonous. You are a traitor to the United States of America.” (Classic case of projection, imho.)

Lindell could have settled as so many others have done. Instead, he has chosen to fight on, hawking pillows, sheets and slippers to pay his legal bills as he goes. His attorney said that because he believed what he was saying was true, it’s not defamation. “It’s just words. All Mike Lindell did was talk,” Lindell’s attorney told the jury. “Mike believed that he was telling the truth.”

Before the trial, Lindell stood on the federal courthouse steps in Denver and proclaimed that his only goal in all this was to ban electronic voting machines and replace them with paper ballots.

“If we can get there,” he said, “I would sacrifice everything.”

If Coomer wins his defamation case against Lindell — and I really hope he does — Lindell will have lost a lot and gained very little. First, the case has nothing to do with the validity of voting machines. Second, an estimated 98% of American voters already cast ballots that leave a paper trail because that’s one way voting machines record votes.

But Lindell, like so many of his MAGA compatriots, still won’t let reality stand in the way of Trump’s Big Lie.

@rabcarian.bsky.social Threads: @rabcarian

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s administration on Friday asked the Supreme Court to pause a court order to reinstate Education Department employees who were fired in mass layoffs as part of his plan to dismantle the agency.

The Justice Department’s emergency appeal to the high court said U.S. District Judge Myong Joun in Boston exceeded his authority last month when he issued a preliminary injunction reversing the layoffs of nearly 1,400 people and putting the broader plan on hold.

Joun’s order has blocked one of the Republican president’s biggest campaign promises and effectively stalled the effort to wind down the department. A federal appeals court refused to put the order on hold while the administration appealed.

The judge wrote that the layoffs “will likely cripple the department.”

But Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote Friday that Joun was substituting his policy preferences for those of the Trump administration.

The layoffs help put in the place the “policy of streamlining the department and eliminating discretionary functions that, in the administration’s view, are better left to the states,” Sauer wrote.

He also pointed out that the Supreme Court in April voted 5-4 to block Joun’s earlier order seeking to keep in place Education Department teacher-training grants.

The current case involves two consolidated lawsuits that said Trump’s plan amounted to an illegal closure of the Education Department.

One suit was filed by the Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts along with the American Federation of Teachers and other education groups. The other suit was filed by a coalition of 21 Democratic attorneys general.

The suits argued that layoffs left the department unable to carry out responsibilities required by Congress, including duties to support special education, distribute financial aid and enforce civil rights laws.

Education Department employees who were targeted by the layoffs have been on paid leave since March, according to a union that represents some of the agency’s staff. Joun’s order prevents the department from fully terminating them, but none have been allowed to return to work, according to the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Without Joun’s order, the workers were scheduled to be terminated Monday.

Trump has made it a priority to shut down the Education Department, though he has acknowledged that only Congress has the authority to do that. In the meantime, Trump issued a March order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to wind it down “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

Trump later said the department’s functions will be parceled to other agencies, suggesting that federal student loans should be managed by the Small Business Administration and programs involving students with disabilities would be absorbed by the Department of Health and Human Services. Those changes have not yet happened.

The president argues that the Education Department has been overtaken by liberals and has failed to spur improvements to the nation’s lagging academic scores. He has promised to “return education to the states.”

Opponents note that K-12 education is already mostly overseen by states and cities.

Democrats have blasted the Trump administration’s Education Department budget, which seeks a 15% budget cut including a $4.5 billion cut in K-12 funding as part of the agency’s downsizing.

Sherman writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Collin Binkley contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — Mexico has a severe problem with gun violence, which originates north of the border, the Supreme Court acknowledged Thursday.

“The country has only a single gun store, and issues fewer than 50 gun permits each year. But gun traffickers can purchase firearms in the United States—often in illegal transactions—and deliver them to drug cartels in Mexico,” the court said. These weapons are used to “commit serious crimes — drug dealing, kidnapping, murder, and others.”

Nonetheless, the justices in an unanimous decision threw out Mexico’s lawsuit against the U.S. gun industry, ruling that federal law shields gun makers from nearly all liability.

Justice Elena Kagan said Congress enacted the law in 2005 to prevent gun companies from being held sued for harms “caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals,” she said.

The law has one narrow exception, she said, that would allow suits if the gun companies had knowingly and deliberately helped criminals buy guns to be sent into Mexico.

But she said the Mexico’s lawsuit did not cite evidence for claim.

“Mexico’s complaint does not plausibly allege that the defendant manufacturers aided and abetted gun dealers’ unlawful sales of firearms to Mexican traffickers,” she wrote. “We have little doubt that, as the complaint asserts, some such sales take place.— and that the manufacturers know they do. But still, Mexico has not adequately pleaded what it needs to: that the manufacturers ‘participate in’ those sales “as in something that [they] wish[] to bring about.”

NEWARK, N.J. — Newark Mayor Ras Baraka sued New Jersey’s top federal prosecutor on Tuesday over his arrest on a trespassing charge at a federal immigration detention facility, saying the Trump-appointed attorney had pursued the case out of political spite.

Baraka, who leads New Jersey’s biggest city, is a candidate in a crowded primary field for the Democratic nomination for governor next Tuesday. The lawsuit against interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba coincided with the day early in-person voting began.

The lawsuit seeks damages for “false arrest and malicious prosecution,” and also accuses Habba of defamation for comments she made about his case, which was later dropped.

Citing a post on X in which Habba said Baraka “committed trespass,” the lawsuit says Habba issued a “defamatory statement” and authorized his “false arrest” despite “clear evidence that Mayor Baraka had not committed the petty offense of ‘defiant trespass.’” The suit also names Ricky Patel, the Homeland Security Investigations agent in charge in Newark. Baraka’s attorney, Nancy Erika Smith, said they also expect to sue President Trump’s administration but are required to wait six months.

“This is not about revenge,” Baraka said during a news conference. “Ultimately, I think this is about them taking accountability for what has happened to me.”

Emails seeking comment were left Tuesday with Habba’s office and the Homeland Security Department, where Patel works.

Videos capture chaos outside the detention center

The episode outside the Delaney Hall federal immigration detention center has had dramatic fallout. It began on May 9 when Baraka tried to join three Democratic members of Congress — Rob Menendez, LaMonica McIver and Bonnie Watson Coleman — who went to the facility for an oversight tour, something authorized under federal law. Baraka, an outspoken critic of Trump’s immigration crackdown and the detention center, was denied entry.

Video from the event showed him walking from the facility side of the fence to the street side, where other people had been protesting. Uniformed officials then came to arrest him. As they did, people could be heard urging the group to protect the mayor. The video shows a crowd forming and pushing as officials led off a handcuffed Baraka.

He was initially charged with trespass, but Habba dropped that charge last month and charged McIver with two counts of assaulting officers stemming from her role in the skirmish at the facility’s gate.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Andre Espinosa rebuked Habba’s office after moving to dismiss the charges. “The hasty arrest of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, followed swiftly by the dismissal of these trespassing charges a mere 13 days later, suggests a worrisome misstep by your Office,” he wrote.

McIver decried the charges and signaled she plans to fight them. A preliminary hearing is scheduled later this month.

Baraka said the aftermath of the withdrawn charge meant he had to explain it in the media and argue his case when he had done nothing wrong.

“I want somebody to apologize, write a letter, say this was wrong, come out and say, ‘We shouldn’t have done this,’” he said.

New Jersey targeted over its so-called sanctuary policies

Delaney Hall, a 1,000-bed facility, opened earlier this year as a federal immigration detention facility. Florida-based Geo Group Inc., which owns and operates the property, was awarded a 15-year contract valued at $1 billion in February. The announcement was part of the president’s plans to sharply increase detention beds nationwide from a budget of about 41,000 beds this year.

Baraka sued Geo soon after that deal was announced.

Then, on May 23, the Trump Justice Department filed a suit against Newark and three other New Jersey cities over their so-called sanctuary policies. There is no legal definition for sanctuary city policies, but they generally limit cooperation by local law enforcement with federal immigration officers.

New Jersey’s attorney general has a statewide directive in place prohibiting local police from collaborating in federal civil immigration matters. The policies are aimed at barring cooperation on civil enforcement matters, not at blocking cooperation on criminal matters. They specifically carve out exceptions for when Immigration and Customs Enforcement supplies police with a judicial criminal warrant. The Justice Department said, though, the cities won’t notify ICE when they’ve made criminal arrests, according to the suit.

It’s unclear whether Baraka’s role in these fights with the White House is affecting his campaign for governor. He’s one of six candidates seeking the Democratic nomination in the June 10 election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy.

On Tuesday, Baraka explained the timing of the suit as an effort to get the case before the court before it was too late. He described the arrest and fallout as a distraction during the campaign.

“But I also think that us not responding is consent,” he said.

In a video ad in the election’s final weeks, Baraka has embraced a theme his rivals are also pushing: affordability. He says he’ll cut taxes. While some of the images show him standing in front of what appears to be Delaney Hall, he doesn’t mention immigration or the arrest specifically, saying: “I’ll keep Trump out of your homes and out of your lives.”

Trump has endorsed Jack Ciattarelli, one of several Republicans running in the gubernatorial primary. Ciattarelli has said if he’s elected, his first executive order would be to end any sanctuary policies for immigrants in the country illegally.

Catalini writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington contributed to this report.

Josh Klinghoffer, the former Red Hot Chili Peppers guitarist, accepted a plea deal after facing a vehicular manslaughter charge.

Klinghoffer, 45, was charged in the death of Israel Sanchez in March after a collision last year in Alhambra. Klinghoffer was driving a black GMC Yukon at the corner of West Main Street and South Meridian Avenue when he turned left at the intersection while 47-year-old Sanchez was walking in a marked crosswalk. Klinghoffer then struck and killed Sanchez.

On Wednesday in court in Alhambra, Klinghoffer pleaded no contest to misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence. He was sentenced to 60 days of community labor and one year of informal probation. He will also have to take a driver safety course and pay restitution.

During the hearing, the prosecutor told Klinghoffer, “If you continue to drive while distracted, and as a result of your driving someone is killed, you can be charged with murder.”

Sanchez’s family sued Klinghoffer for wrongful death after the incident, alleging that Klinghoffer was on his phone at the time of the collision. “Video of the incident shows that defendant Josh Adam Klinghoffer made no braking or slowing motion until after he fatally struck Israel Sanchez, indicating that Defendant was likely driving while distracted.”

“This horrible outcome was foreseeable and demonstrates a willful disregard for the rights and safety of others,” the suit continued.

Klinghoffer’s attorney in the civil suit, Andrew Brettler, said in a statement to The Times last year, “After Josh struck this pedestrian in the intersection, he immediately pulled over, stopped the car, called 911 and waited until police and the ambulance arrived. Obviously, he’s cooperating with the police throughout the traffic investigation. This was purely a tragic accident.”

Klinghoffer played guitar with the Red Hot Chili Peppers from 2009 to 2019, when longtime guitarist John Frusciante returned. Klinghoffer was inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame with the band in 2012. He has since performed as a member of Jane’s Addiction and Pearl Jam.

California on Wednesday joined 15 other states filing suit against the National Science Foundation and its acting director, alleging the agency has illegally terminated millions of dollars in grants and imposed new fees that have ended or crippled research vital to health, the economy and the advancement of knowledge.

The Trump administration has defended its actions as both legal and necessary to align the NSF with the president’s priorities.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York, specifically targets the science foundation for “terminating grants for scientific research that seeks to promote and understand diversity in higher education and the workforce,” according to a statement from California Atty. General Rob Bonta.

The suit alleges that the NSF’s actions are illegally arbitrary and capricious and violate federal law on the management and use of federal funding.

Bonta’s office asserted that between 1995 and 2017, the number of women in science and engineering occupations, or with science or engineering degrees, doubled with help from federal support; minorities, meanwhile, went from representing about 15% in the occupations to about 35%.

The suit also seeks to overturn the Trump administration’s 15% cap on indirect costs related to research, which universities say are critical to carrying out their work. Such indirect costs include maintaining lab space, keeping the temperature controlled and the proper handling and disposal of biological, chemical and biochemical materials.

Like other key federal agencies, the National Science Foundation has been in turmoil since Trump took office in January — undergoing across-the-board funding cuts, layoffs and reorganization as well as apparent ideological litmus tests for research, sweeping grant terminations and a funding freeze on grant applications.

The Trump administration has fired back at critics.

Earlier this month Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, criticized diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in federally funded research, calling them “close-minded” in a speech before the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.

Kratsios also called for a reduction of “red tape” in scientific research, the online news site FedScoop reported. He said there is a “crisis of confidence in scientists” that comes from fears that political biases are impacting research.

Trump officials also have repeatedly maintained that the federal government is rife with waste and fraud.

The federal actions have come at extreme cost, according to Bonta.

“President Trump wants to make America’s universities second tier with his backwards efforts to slash research funding that has kept us on the cutting edge of science and innovation,” Bonta said. “For more than 50 years, Congress has expressly authorized the National Science Foundation to train up the next generation of talent and invest in the infrastructure necessary to keep our position as a global leader” in science, technology, engineering and math.

“With President Trump’s latest round of indiscriminate funding cuts, America is poised to fall behind its competitors at a critical moment in the global technology race. We’re suing to stop him,” Bonta said.

In California, billions of dollars are at risk across the California State University, University of California and public community college systems.

“Many innovations — like the internet, GPS, and MRI technology — trace their origins to research initially funded by NSF. Without NSF funding, many California colleges and universities will be forced to substantially reduce or stop altogether potentially groundbreaking programs and research projects,” according to Bonta’s office.

Terminated NSF grants, for instance, include a five-year, $3-million project, “Computational Research for Equity in the Legal System.” This study examined crime data for patterns of racial bias while also looking at police misconduct and eviction policies, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

Canceled UC Berkeley grants included projects on electoral systems and two on environmental science education.

The NSF has also told staff to screen grant proposals for “topics or activities that may not be in alignment with agency priorities” that had shifted under the Trump administration, the journal Nature reported.

The lawsuit lays out a wide range of benefits and goals of the federal funding.

“From developing AI technology that predicts weather patterns to protect communities, to developing sustainable solutions for environmental and economic challenges, to making power grids more sustainable, NSF-funded research at American universities ensures this nation’s status as a global leader in scientific innovation,” according to the lawsuit.

The other states involved in the litigation are Hawaii, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Washington.

The pattern of federal cuts and turmoil related to research also is playing out with the National Institutes of Health. And California also is party to a lawsuit over cuts to these grants.

Tara Kerin, a project scientist who works in pediatric infectious disease research at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, said that the funding cuts at the National Science Foundation echoed similar ones made at the National Institutes of Health.

That, she said, makes her “very nervous about the future of science and research.”

Kerin, whose work has partly focused on HIV prevention and detection in young adults, was funded by NIH grants — until they were cut this spring.

May 29 (UPI) — Smokey Robinson and his wife, Frances Robinson, filed a defamation suit against a group of women who have accused him of sexual assault.

The cross-complaint suit claims the sexual assault allegations by four former housekeepers, filed on May 6, were “fabricated” in order to support an “extortionate scheme.”

The suit contends that the Robinsons did not harm or abuse the former housekeepers and seeks to force the women who filed their suit using “Jane Doe” names to be publicly identified.

It also alleges they first demanded $100 million before filing the suit.

“When the Robinsons resisted the extortionate demands, plaintiffs filed this lawsuit,” attorney Christopher Frost wrote.

The suit further alleges that John Harris, an attorney for the housekeepers, and his firm Harris and Hayden, defamed Robinson by referring to the singer as a “serial and sick rapist” who must be stopped.

Harris and Hayden said in a Wednesday statement they will file a motion to strike down Robinson’s suit based on California’s law on “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” or SLAPP.

The law was designed to prevent harassing lawsuits filed by wealthy celebrities and corporations intended to silence free speech and intimidate accusers.

To succeed in legally striking down a SLAPP lawsuit, defendants must show they are being sued for “any act … in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue.“

“The cross-complaint … is nothing more than an attempt to silence and intimidate the survivors of Mr. Robinson’s sexual battery and assault. It is a baseless and vindictive legal maneuver designed to re-victimize, shift blame and discourage others from coming forward,” lawyers for the women accusing Robinson said in a statement to USA Today.

The women accusing Robinson alleged in their suit that Robinson committed sexual battery, assault, false imprisonment, and gender violence for years.

On May 15, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department announced Robinson is under criminal investigation for sexual assault.

Robinson has denied the allegations.

NPR and three of its member stations filed suit in federal court Tuesday against President Trump‘s White House over the president’s executive order to block funding for public media.

Trump’s order called for an end to government dollars for the Corp. for Public Broadcasting, the taxpayer-backed entity that provides funding to NPR and PBS. He called the outlets “left wing propaganda.”

The suit says the May 1 action by Trump violated the 1st Amendment.

“The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because, in the President’s view, their news and other content is not ‘fair, accurate, or unbiased,’” the legal brief said, according to an NPR report.

The suit also says that the funding — currently at around $500 million annually — is appropriated by Congress. The allocation is made two years in advance.

“Congress directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of the federal government,” Corp. for Public Broadcasting chief Patricia Harrison told NPR in a statement.

Harrison said that the Corp. for Public Broadcasting is not a federal agency subject to the president’s authority.

“The Executive Order is a clear violation of the Constitution and the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of speech and association, and freedom of the press,” NPR President and Chief Executive Katherine Maher said in a statement.

The order is one of a number of attempts by Trump to limit or intimidate institutions he does not agree with. Targets included law firms, universities and media companies such as CBS, which is being sued for $20 billion over a “60 Minutes” interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris during the 2024 presidential campaign.

NPR filed the suit with three public radio outlets, including Denver-based Colorado Public Radio, Aspen Pubic Radio and KSUT which serves the Four Corners region of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico and Utah.

Both NPR and PBS have stressed that the bulk of the federal funding they receive goes to stations that provide local news and emergency alerts for their communities.

HONOLULU — Environmentalists are challenging in court President Trump’s executive order that they say strips core protections from the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument and opens the area to harmful commercial fishing.

On the same day of last month’s proclamation allowing commercial fishing in the monument, Trump issued an order to boost the U.S. commercial fishing industry by peeling back regulations and opening up harvesting in previously protected areas.

The monument was created by President George W. Bush in 2009 and expanded by President Obama to nearly 500,000 square miles in the central Pacific Ocean.

A week after the April 17 proclamation, the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service sent a letter to fishing permit holders giving them a green light to fish commercially within the monument’s boundaries, even though a long-standing fishing ban remains on the books, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Honolulu.

The first longline fisher started fishing in the monument just three days after that letter, according to Earthjustice, which has been tracking vessel activity within the monument using Global Fishing Watch.

The Department of Justice declined to comment Friday.

The lawsuit noted that commercial longline fishing, an industrial method involving baited hooks from lines 60 miles or longer, will snag turtles, marine mammals or seabirds that are attracted to the bait or swim through the curtain of hooks.

“We will not stand by as the Trump administration unleashes highly destructive commercial fishing on some of the planet’s most pristine, biodiverse marine environments,” David Henkin, an Earthjustice attorney, said in a statement. “Piling lawlessness on top of lawlessness, the National Marine Fisheries Service chose to carry out President Trump’s illegal proclamation by issuing its own illegal directive, with no public input.”

Designating the area in the Pacific to the south and west of the Hawaiian Islands as a monument provided “needed protection to a wide variety of scientific and historical treasures in one of the most spectacular and unique ocean ecosystems on earth,” the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit added that allowing commercial fishing in the monument expansion harms the “cultural, spiritual, religious, subsistence, educational, recreational, and aesthetic interests” of a group of Native Hawaiian plaintiffs who are connected genealogically to the Indigenous people of the Pacific.

Johnston Atoll is the closest island in the monument to Hawaii, about 717 nautical miles west-southwest of the state.

Kelleher writes for the Associated Press.

Edison International officers and directors misled the company’s investors about the effectiveness of its efforts to reduce the risk of wildfire in the months and years before the devastating Eaton fire, a shareholder lawsuit claims.

The lawsuit, filed last week in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, points to repeated statements that the utility made in federal regulatory reports that said it had reduced the risk of a catastrophic wildfire by more than 85% since 2018 by increasing equipment inspections, tree trimming and other work aimed at stopping fires.

The complaint also raises doubts about news releases and other statements that Edison made soon after the start of Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed thousands of homes and businesses in Altadena.

“We take all legal matters seriously,” said Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Edison. “We will review this lawsuit and respond through the appropriate legal channels.”

The lawsuit claims that Edison’s early statements on the Eaton fire — in which it detailed why it believed its equipment was not involved in the fire’s start — were wrong.

“Edison obfuscated the truth by making false and misleading statements concerning its role in the fire,” the lawsuit claims.

More recently, Pedro Pizarro, the chief executive of Edison International, said the leading theory for the fire’s start was the reenergization of an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon.

The investigation by state and local fire investigators into the official cause of the deadly fire is continuing.

The lawsuit was filed as a derivative action in which shareholders sue a company’s officers and directors on behalf of the company, claiming they had breached their fiduciary duties. It seeks financial damages from Pizarro, Chief Financial Officer Maria Rigatti and members of the company’s board of directors. Money recovered would go to the company.

It also directs Edison “to take all necessary actions” to reform its corporate governance procedures, comply with all laws and protect the company and its investors “from a recurrence of the damaging events.”

The lawsuit was brought by Charlotte Bark, a shareholder of Edison International, the parent company of Southern California Edison.

“Prior to the outbreak of the Eaton Fire, the Company had a long history of not prioritizing the safety of those who lived in the areas it serviced, and paying fines as a result,” the lawsuit states. Since 2000, it says, Edison has paid financial penalties of $1.3 billion for violating utility safety regulations.

The complaint points to an October regulatory report that was the focus of a Times report. In the article, state regulators criticized some of Edison’s wildfire mitigation efforts, including for falling behind in inspecting transmission lines in areas at high risk of fires.

The lawsuit lists the major destructive wildfires that investigators said were sparked by Edison’s equipment in recent years, including the Bobcat and Silverado fires in 2020, as well as the Coastal and Fairview fires in 2022.

“The recurring wildfire incidents connected to the Company display that the Board has repeatedly failed to mitigate a risk that materially threatens Edison,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit accuses Pizarro, Rigatti and the company’s board of directors of “gross mismanagement” and claims that the defendants “unjustly enriched” themselves.

“Because the Individual Defendants failed to carry out their respective duties, the compensation they received was excessive and undeserved,” the suit states.

It asks the court for an order that would require the officers and directors to pay restitution, including returning the compensation they received that was tied to how well the company performed.

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has agreed to pay just under $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit that Ashli Babbitt’s family filed over her shooting by an officer during the U.S. Capitol riot, according to a person with knowledge of the settlement. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss with the Associated Press terms of a settlement that have not been made public.

The settlement would resolve the $30-million federal lawsuit that Babbitt’s estate filed last year in Washington, D.C. On Jan. 6, 2021, a Capitol police officer shot Babbitt as she tried to climb through the broken window of a barricaded door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby.

The officer who shot her was cleared of wrongdoing by the U.S. Attorney’s office for the District of Columbia, which concluded that he acted in self-defense and in the defense of members of Congress. The Capitol Police also cleared the officer.

Settlement terms haven’t been disclosed in public court filings. On May 2, lawyers for Babbitt’s estate and the Justice Department told a federal judge that they had reached a settlement in principle but were still working out the details before a final agreement could be signed.

Justice Department spokespeople and two attorneys for the Babbitt family didn’t immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

Babbitt, a 35-year-old Air Force veteran from San Diego, was unarmed when she was shot by the officer. The lawsuit alleges that the plainclothes officer failed to de-escalate the situation and did not give her any warnings or commands before opening fire.

The suit also accused the Capitol Police of negligence, claiming the department should have known that the officer was “prone to behave in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner.”

“Ashli posed no threat to the safety of anyone,” the lawsuit said.

The officer said in a televised interview that he fired as a “last resort.” He said he didn’t know if the person jumping through the window was armed when he pulled the trigger.

Thousands of people stormed the Capitol after President Trump spoke to a crowd of supporters at his Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rally near the White House. More than 100 police officers were injured in the attack.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, Trump pardoned, commuted the prison sentences or ordered the dismissal of charges for all of the more than 1,500 people charged with crimes in the riot.

Tucker and Kunzelman write for the Associated Press. AP writer Alanna Durkin Richer contributed to this report.