Newly apppointed Contra Costa County Superior Court Judges Hann Fakhoury and Amanda Karl. Photos: Office of the California Governor
By Office of the California Governor
Governor Gavin Newsom announced on Friday, March 27 2026, his appointment of two more Superior Court Judges in Contra Costa County, Hanni Fakhoury and Amanda Karl.
Hanni Fakhoury, of Contra Costa County, has been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Fakhoury has worked as a Partner of Moeel Lah Fakhoury since 2021, where he works in white collar and federal criminal defense as a trial attorney and mediator. He served as an Assistant Federal Public Defender at the Federal Public Defender for Northern District of California from 2015 to 2021. Fakhoury worked as a Staff Attorney and Senior Staff Attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation from 2011 to 2015. He worked as a Trial Attorney at the Federal Defenders of San Diego from 2007 to 2011.
According to his Linkedin profile, “Fakhoury is an accomplished litigator who represents individuals and companies in criminal prosecutions and government and regulatory investigations. He is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and a Northern California Super Lawyer. In addition to litigation, Hanni serves as a mediator in the Northern District of California’s ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) program and is a co-lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law.
According to his bio on his law firm’s website, Fakhoury is a “Bay Area native” and “proudly serves the Northern District of California as a member of its Criminal Justice Act (CJA) trial panel, representing indigent criminal defendants. He was also selected by the Northern District bench to serve on the court’s Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility, Criminal Rules and Practice Committee, and CJA Administration Committee.”
“A sought-after teacher, Hanni…co-teaches a seminar on white collar crime. He has presented and lectured at over 100 legal conferences to wide audiences, including judges, attorneys and the public at large.”
Fakhoury received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law. He fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles S. Treat. Fakhoury is a Democrat.
Amanda Karl, of Alameda County, has also been appointed to serve as a Judge in the Contra Costa County Superior Court. Karl has worked as a Partner at Gibbs Mura since 2022, where she also worked as an Associate from 2016 to 2021. She served as a Law Clerk at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California from 2015 to 2016 and at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from 2014 to 2015.
According to her profile on the Gibbs Mura website, Karl “represents consumers, employees and others who have been harmed by corporations. She has prosecuted a wide range of complex cases, including product defect, failure-to-warn, wage and hour, data breach, sexual assault, and securities cases, within a variety of industries. In 2024 she was honored as a Rising Star by Law360, a highly selective award that recognizes top attorneys under the age of 40.
Karl received a Juris Doctor degree from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law as a member of the Order of the Coif, a national honorary scholastic society, which extends invitations to the top 10% of Berkeley Law’s graduating J.D. students by grade point average. . She fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Charles B. Burch. Karl is a Democrat.
The annual compensation for each of these positions is $244,727.
By Matt J. Malone, PIO, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa
New Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Carole Bosch.Photo source: Office of the California Governor
The Contra Costa Superior Court is pleased to announce that Governor Gavin Newsom has appointed Carole Bosch as the Court’s newest judge. She took her oath on March 20, 2026, and began presiding in Department 3 on March 23, 2026.
Since 2021, Judge Bosch, of Alameda County, has served as an administrative law judge with the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board since 2021, an independent administrative judicial agency charged with resolving disputed unemployment, disability, and employment tax determinations from the Employment Development Department. She was Vice President and Training Committee Co-Chair for the Administrative Law Judge Association. Simultaneously, she taught as an adjunct professor of legal writing and research at Golden Gate University.
Before serving as administrative law judge, Judge Bosch worked as a civil trial lawyer, including as a managing attorney at Hildebrand, McLeod and Nelson from 2017 to 2021, a partner at Paul & Hanley from 2007 to 2011, and an attorney at Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood from 2013 to 2016, in cases involving complex product liability litigation and catastrophic injury. Bosch also worked as a Partner at Minnard Bosch from 2016 to 2017 and at Farrise Law Firm from 2012 to 2013. Early in her legal career, she was an annual attorney with the California Supreme Court in 2007and worked as a Clerk at Hersh & Hersh from 2005 to 2007.
Judge Bosch is graduate of Golden Gate University School of Law and received her undergraduate degree from the University of California at Santa Cruz. She also holds a master’s degree from the University of Birmingham in Great Britain. Judge Bosch fills the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Patricia Scanlon. Bosch is a Democrat.
The annual compensation for her position is $244,727.
By Ted Asregadoo, PIO, Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office
Martinez, California – Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton and other District Attorneys in the State of California reached a settlement with Walgreen Co. for $6,000,000 for violations related to expired baby food, drugs, and overcharging customers.
The civil case and settlement centered on the company violating state law by charging their customers more than the lowest price posted or advertised price. The allegations that the company was in violation of these laws were based on inspections of scanners. Moreover, the civil lawsuit led to a resolution that Walgreens failed to comply with laws that prohibit the selling or offering to sell over-the-counter drugs, infant formula, and baby food products beyond the expiration date.
The court ordered Walgreen Co. to pay $5.4 million in civil penalties and $600,000 to reimburse state district attorney offices for the cost of investigations, attorneys’ fees, and other costs associated with enforcement. Contra Costa County will receive $612,000 of the civil settlement and $10,000 to cover the costs.
Walgreen Co. will also implement a three-year program to promote pricing accuracy and the removal of expired products from its store shelves. This program requires store managers to conduct monthly checks of all aisles and shelves of medication, baby food, and formula, and remove any expired items. Managers must also conduct weekly store walks and remove signage displaying inaccurate sales tag information and post signs informing customers of Walgreens’ Price Promise Guarantee. The Price Promise Guarantee means that if a customer notices a scanned price is higher than the advertised price, the customer will be charged the lower price.
District Attorney Diana Becton said, “Customers should have confidence that companies that sell food and formula to infants and children are doing so by being scrupulous about the safety of the products in their stores. The same goes for medications that are sold beyond their expiration dates. The work of my office and those of other district attorney offices in the state shows that when we work together to enforce laws, we not only ensure compliance – we’re also restoring trust and safety in our communities.”
Case No. 1-13-CV-239110 | The People of the State of California v. Walgreen Co., an Illinois Corporation
Will also deal with legal matters including the ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit, potential lawsuit with “significant exposure” and two cases; Measure W spending & Economic Development reports
By Allen D. Payton
During a Special Meeting before their regular meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss development of the 2026-27 Fiscal Year budget with a potential $13.5 to $14.1 million deficit. During their regular meeting the council members will also discuss approving an AI assistant for police dispatch, and receive reports on both Measure W spending, which has decreased the amount for police down to 65.4%, and economic development.
Closed Session, Lawsuits & Property Negotiations
But first, at 4:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session during which they will discuss the ongoing Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., civil rights class action lawsuit that’s not yet completely settled. (See related articles here and here) They will also discuss a potential lawsuit described as, Significant Exposure to Litigation. The description for that agenda item reads, “The City is in receipt of information concerning facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff and that pertain to potential claims by the potential plaintiff against the City. Two cases.”
Finally, the Closed Session agenda item 3, the Council will enter into Real Property Negotiations with Lone Tree Golf & Event Center Manager Ron Parish for two properties, 4800 Golf Course Road and West 1st Street. The City owns both the Lynn House and the old Mayor Hard House on that street. UPDATE: Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas and City PIO Jaden Baird later explained that including West 1st Street was a mistake and the negotiations are only about the golf and event center.
Source: City of Antioch
Budget Study Session
At 5:00 p.m., the Council will hold Special Meeting/Study Session on the 2026-27 Fiscal Year Budget Development. The City is facing a double-digit deficit of $13.5 million to $14.1 million depending if the council approves increasing the number of sworn police officers to 117.
AI Assistant for Police Dispatch
During their regular meeting, under the Consent Calendar Item J., the council will consider approving a Sole Source Agreement with Prepared to provide an AI assistive call taking system for the Police Department Dispatch Center for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $248,400 for Years 1 through 2, with an option to extend for three additional years.
According to the city staff report, “The Dispatch Center is currently operating with four Dispatcher vacancies out of 17 allocated positions (13 Dispatchers and 4 Leads), representing an approximately 24% vacancy rate. Call demand remains consistently high. The Police Dispatch Center handled approximately 72,000 9-1-1 calls in both 2024 and 2025. Non-emergency call activity remained steady as well, at approximately 208,000 calls annually. In addition to phone call volume, the Police Department handled 86,185 calls for service incidents in 2025, including AQCRT (Community Response Team) calls, which require ongoing dispatch coordination beyond the initial intake.”
Assistive call taking technology is intended to support Dispatchers, not replace them with the following:
Improve Service for Non-Emergency Callers and Reduce Hold Times
Support Emergency Calls Through “Co-Pilot” Functionality
Improve Documentation and Reduce Staff Time Spent on Records Requests
Expand Language Access and Support DOJ (Department of Justice) MOA (Memorandum of Understanding) Obligations
Measure W Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Annual Report
Under Consent Calendar agenda Item N. the Council will receive the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report on Measure W (1% Sales Tax). It will show the amount being spent on police has decreased from 80%, as originally intended, to now, just 65.4%.
Economic Development Update
In addition, according to the City staff report for agenda item 7, the Council receive an update on the City’s Economic Development activities and progress, provide policy direction as appropriate, and offer feedback to staff on priorities and the timing of subsequent updates to the City Council. The matter is part of the Council’s 6-Month Priority list.
Meeting Details
The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The latter two meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.
Range from $37,500 to $725,000 paid to 18 plaintiffs last year, but lawsuit not finalized; two who received large payouts are serving 19 and 20 years in prison for voluntary manslaughter
By Allen D. Payton
While one portion of the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City of Antioch, specific police officers and former chiefs was settled for just attorney’s fees, 23 plaintiffs also settled their claims last year with 18 receiving payouts costing millions.
During a press conference held on Friday, Dec. 19, 2025, John Burris, civil rights attorney for the plaintiffs, called the settlement “historic” and a “win-win” and explained, “There were two parts of the case, one involving the individuals, which we settled, 23.”
Although the settlement announced that day only cost the City plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees for close to $155,000, the City paid out $5,210,000 in 18 of the 23 settled cases that were never announced publicly, nor information provided until now. Some of the cases were past the statute of limitations so those plaintiffs received a lesser payout.
On Monday, February 9, 2026, the City responded to a Public Records Act request submitted by the Herald on Dec. 20, for all of the settlement documents related to the class action civil rights lawsuit against the City showing the names of the parties, how much each was paid including the City’s portion versus the amounts paid by the insurance pool to which the City contributes. In addition, City Manager Bessie Scott’s prepared remarks offered at the press conference were also requested.
Oakland civil rights attorney John Burris and associates filed the lawsuit in April 2023, naming five then-current and former officers, for their racist and other offensive texts and mistreatment of citizens, plus, three past police chiefs, the City of Antioch and Does 1-100. (See related articles here and here)
As previously reported, on March 9, 2021, Terryonn Deshawn Pugh, Trent Allen, Eric James Windom and Keyshawn Malik McGee engaged in a shooting in the City of Antioch wherein they discharged firearms at a vehicle in a residential neighborhood. The barrage of bullets killed Arnold Marcel Hawkins and injured another person.
The four defendants were charged on a six-count felony complaint with enhancements in November 2021 and on May 6, 2024, the Contra Costa District Attorney’s Office reached a resolution in the 2021 murder of Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson.
In resolving the case, the four defendants entered pleas of no contest to the following:
Terryonn Pugh: No contest on two counts of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter – with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 20 years in state prison.
Trent Allen: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for an unrelated robbery. Allen was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.
Eric Windom: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm. He will also serve a concurrent term for a robbery that is unrelated to this case. Windom was sentenced on May 8th, 2024, to 19 years in state prison.
Keyshawn McGee: No contest on one count of attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter — with an additional punishment for the use of a firearm in both the murder and voluntary manslaughter charges. McGee was sentenced on May 10th, 2024, to 13 years, 8 months in state prison.
The four were part of the arrests of 48 gang members and associates during a complex, six-month investigation involving 24 agencies, for murder, attempted murder and illegal guns. The effort removed 40 firearms, including 15 “ghost guns” off the streets and over $100,000 in cash. (See related article)
City Manager’s Press Conference Comments
During the press conference on Dec. 19, 2025, City Manager Scott said, “I want to start by acknowledging what this period has meant for people in Antioch. The last few years have been difficult and, for many residents, deeply unsettling. Trust was strained. Confidence in institutions took a serious hit. Many in our community have carried that weight in ways that don’t show up in headlines.
“Today reflects the culmination of a long, demanding process. It has taken ongoing effort, patience, and a willingness to stay engaged even when it was uncomfortable. I want to recognize the people who kept showing up and kept working.
“I’m grateful to John Burris and his team. We have approached this from different sides, but there was a shared understanding that Antioch needed a path forward that is durable and serious. That kind of alignment does not erase differences. It makes progress possible.
“I also want to thank our City staff and legal team for moving this work forward with discipline and care, and I want to recognize the community, residents, advocates, and neighborhood voices who insisted the City meet a higher standard and kept that expectation in front of us.
“I appreciate the Antioch Police Oversight Commission and City leadership for supporting forward movement, and for the decision to hire a Chief who reflects the values this moment requires. Leadership sets the tone and over time, it shapes culture.
“Today is about refusing to let the City remain defined by the failures and controversy that brought us to this point. Antioch deserves a government that listens, adjusts, and delivers. It deserves public service that is fair, professional, and consistent across every neighborhood and every interaction.
“As we move into the next chapter, our focus is steady execution, staying transparent about progress, and earning trust through sustained performance and measurable improvements.”
On February 9th, the day the PRA request was partially fulfilled, an email was sent to City Manager Bessie Scott, Mayor Ron Bernal and all four council members, Assistant City Attorney Kevin Kundinger who worked on the settlements, City Clerk Michael Mandy and City PIO Jaden Baird.
They were asked to provide the breakdown of how much was paid by the City for each of the 18 settlements and how much was paid by the insurance pool.
They were also informed that during the press conference attorney John Burris said there had been 23 cases settled and asked for the information about the other five.
The PDF’s of each of the 18 settlements provided were incomplete as they do not include the signatures of the City’s legal representative on the settlements showing the dates each was finally settled. The final versions with the signatures and dates signed by the City’s legal representative were requested.
They were also asked why the City didn’t announce each of the settlements when they occurred last March, April, May, June and July based on the dates the agreements were signed by the plaintiffs and a representative of John Burris’ law firm; why did they wait so long to provide the details to the public and only after a PRA request was made and how is that being transparent.
Finally, they were asked why the lawsuit is still referred to as “Existing Litigation” and was discussed during the Closed Session of the City Council meeting on Tuesday, Feb. 10th if it’s all been settled.
Since no response was received from any of the city council or staff members, an email with the same requests and questions was, again sent on Feb. 24 and included City Finance Director Dawn Merchant in hopes she could share the amounts the City paid out on each of the 18 settled lawsuits and how much was paid by the insurance pool.
A meeting was then held with City Clerk Michael Mandy on Feb. 25th in another attempt to get the PRA request completely fulfilled. But still, no response was received.
Finally, all five council members and aforementioned City staff were emailed again on Feb. 26th, and included then-Interim City Attorney Derek Cole and Assistant City Clerk Christina Garcia.
Interim City Attorney Says Lawsuit Settlement “Not Currently Finalized”
On Friday, February 27, 2026, Cole responded, “In response, I note that much of what you ask about in your email are questions for comment, not requests for records under the Public Records Act. This consolidated lawsuit remains active as the settlement agreement is not currently finalized and executed. Therefore, neither our office nor City Administration believe it is appropriate to comment on your questions at this time.
“Further, to the extent you have stated proper requests for public records, we note that the City does not have an obligation until after the litigation has concluded to produce any response records. (See Gov. Code sec. 7927.200(a).)
“We do note that, to date, the City’s employment risk manager has paid nearly all of the legal fees and litigation costs for the consolidated action. The City will have to reimburse these expenses after the conclusion of the consolidated action, but as of this time, the City does not have information it can share on what its ultimate share of the litigation expenses will be.
“We also note that the City has agreed to pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees for this case and we do provide a copy of the order the parties entered into to effectuate that agreement. The amount of the attorney fees to be paid is stated in the order.”
The order entitled, “Attorneys’ Fees Agreement” and dated Jan. 8, 2026, shows the City paid Plaintiffs’ counsel attorneys’ fees in the amount $154,902.50 to Burris Nisenbaum Curry & Lacy, LLP.
By Brian Nash, PIO, Contra Costa Public Defender’s Office
MARTINEZ, CA — Stand Together Contra Costa (STCC), a program of the Contra Costa Public Defender’s Office (CCPD), will unveil a new Mobile Legal Clinic at a press conference at 1026 Escobar in Martinez on Thursday, January 29 at 11:00 am. This marks a major step forward in bringing trusted legal advice directly to communities across Contra Costa County.
The Mobile Legal Clinic is designed to remove barriers that often prevent people from accessing legal help — including transportation challenges, work schedules, childcare responsibilities, language access, and fear of state violence by federal immigration agents. Staffed by CCPD attorneys and support staff, the clinic will provide free legal guidance on immigration legal issues, navigating the legal system, and culturally responsive assistance. It will also provide navigation to other holistic services such as public benefits, housing support, clean slate, and more — helping residents address concerns early, before problems escalate into crises.
“This mobile legal clinic reflects a simple but powerful idea: justice works best when it’s accessible,” said Ali Saidi, a Deputy Public Defender in the CCPD and the Director of Stand Together Contra Costa. “By showing up directly in neighborhoods across the county, we’re removing barriers, building trust, and making sure people know they’re not alone when legal issues arise.”
The office is planning upcoming mobile legal clinic deployments throughout all five Contra Costa County supervisorial districts beginning in early February, with dates, times, and locations to be announced soon through Contra Costa Public Defender and Stand Together Contra Costa channels.
A Countywide Effort
“Our commitment to serving community members in Contra Costa County goes beyond our vigorous advocacy inside of the courtroom,” added CCPD Public Defender Ellen McDonnell. “Access to justice means making sure every community member — no matter their income, background, or neighborhood — understands their legal rights and is able to find help when and where they need it.”
The Mobile Legal Clinic was made possible through collaboration across county departments and community partners, reflecting a shared commitment to expanding access to justice.
“This initiative demonstrates what’s possible when county leaders and departments work together with the community,” Saidi continued. “We’re grateful to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors and community partners for making this possible and want to particularly thank Supervisor Ken Carlson — whose support and leadership helped turn this idea into a critical service that will have real impact for families across the county.”
Former Stockton City Attorney Lori Asuncion is expected to be hired as the new Antioch City Attorney next Tuesday night. Photo source: LinkedIn
Quit while facing possible termination last week, Lori Asuncion leaves behind split, dysfunctional council
Expected to be offered the new job, be paid $288,000 salary and $225,000 in benefits per year, 25% more than in City 3x Antioch’s size
By Allen D. Payton
During their regular meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2026, the Antioch City Council will vote on hiring a new, permanent city attorney. The Council has decided to offer the position to former Stockton City Attorney Lori Asuncion who resigned last week during the Stockton City Council meeting on Jan. 12th. The move follows several closed session meetings with both the consultant, Recruiter Joe Gorton, from the Bob Hall & Associates recruiting firm, and candidates during the recruitment process.
It will be a little over a year since Thomas Lloyd Smith resigned the position last Jan. 17th. Since then, Derek Cole has served as Antioch’s Interim City Attorney.
According to a Jan. 13, 2026, report by Stocktonia, a local, nonprofit, digital news source, “Faced with the possibility of termination, Lori Asuncion resigned as Stockton City Attorney on Tuesday evening. Asuncion’s resignation was effective immediately and received a 7-0 vote from the council. The council also voted unanimously to appoint Assistant City Attorney Taryn Jones as acting city attorney, effective immediately.
“The leadership shake-up came six days after councilmembers Brando Villapudua, Michele Padilla and Mariela Ponce asked Stockton’s city clerk to put an item considering Asuncion’s dismissal on Tuesday’s closed session agenda.”
However, other council members questioned the trio’s move. According to the article, “Vice Mayor Jason Lee described Asuncion as ‘a stellar employee’ in a statement to Stocktonia. ‘She was one of the steady rails of City Hall — someone people relied on, trusted and respected.’”
“According to Jones’ announcement at Tuesday’s council meeting, Asuncion’s resignation is subject to a separation agreement, which includes the city paying her $3,500 in attorney’s fees and a mutual non-disparagement agreement between Asuncion and the city. The purpose of the attorney’s fees payment wasn’t explained.”
The issue of Asuncion’s possible firing dates back to last August according to a report by the Stockton Record. “As Stockton City Council members continue to accuse each other of misconduct, some on the council may attempt to oust City Attorney Lori Asuncion,” the Aug. 12, 2025, article reads. “The agenda for Tuesday’s closed session shows the city attorney is scheduled for a performance review. A subsequent item, which doesn’t name a specific employee, references the dismissal, discipline or release of a public employee, followed by the appointment of a replacement — identified as the city attorney.”
Another Stocktonia report, published prior to the Jan. 13th council meeting, further revealed the split and dysfunction among city council members. It reads, “Infighting on — and off — the dais seems unlikely to subside any time soon.” The article also shared emailed comments by Asuncion defending herself to one of the council members who made the “request to add the item concerning the city attorney’s possible firing to Tuesday’s agenda.”
“I am fully aware of my charter duties, and I work diligently to stay out of your council’s frequent political battles,” Asuncion said in the email. “I don’t have personal allegiances to any of the council because my client is the City of Stockton,” adding that “It is my practice regardless of what may be the circumstances of my interaction with each councilmember to maintain a productive, respectful, and professional relationship with (each) individual.”
Asuncion’s Experience & Education
According to the Antioch City staff report for the agenda item, #6, “Ms. Asuncion has considerable experience in municipal law. She has served as the City Attorney in Stockton, with a population of nearly 325,000, since 2022. Ms. Asuncion began employment with Stockton in 2007 as a Deputy City Attorney and was elevated to Assistant City Attorney in 2018. She worked in private civil practice between 2005 and 2007.”
According to her LinkedIn profile, Asuncion was promoted to City Attorney in September 2022.
She “has practiced law for more than two decades, brings considerable legal experience to Antioch. She has served as the chief legal officer for a city nearly three times Antioch’s population. She manages a large, full department that includes an assistant and deputy city attorneys. Throughout her 18-year career with Stockton, she has advised several city departments and managed litigation involving her city. She is also well experienced in drafting municipal ordinances and agreements and in matters involving public records management. All of this experience gives her ample qualifications to continue her legal career with Antioch,” the staff report continues.
“Ms. Asuncion has been active in professional development. She has served on the California League of Cities/City Attorneys Departments’ Nominating and Legal Advocacy Committee and as an editor of its Municipal Law Handbook.
“Ms. Asuncion received her law degree from the University of the Pacific-McGeorge Law School in 2005 and a Bachelor of Arts from California State University-Stanislaus in 2002.”
Proposed Compensation
If hired, according to the City staff report, “Asuncion will earn an annual salary of $288,000 ($24,000 per month). She would accrue 12 sick days per year and receive 30 days of vacation per year, with 15 of those days ‘frontloaded’ at the start of her employment. Ms. Asuncion’s agreement would entitle her to six months of severance pay in the event of a not-for-cause separation of employment. The City would further pay for Ms. Asuncion’s dues for the California State Bar Association and Contra Costa County Bar Association and would pay for her attendance of professional development conferences and events (e.g., Cal Cities-City Attorneys Spring Conference).
“Ms. Asuncion is a ‘classic’ PERS employee and would receive full cafeteria benefits. Combining the value of her salary and total benefits, the total annualized cost of her compensation would be $513,028 ($225,028 of which would be for benefits).”
According to Transparent California, in 2024, Asuncion earned Regular pay of $290,601, Other pay of $15,300 for Total pay of $305,901. In addition, she received $98,700 in benefits for a total compensation package of $404,601 per year.
Stockton Already Recruiting for New City Attorney
The City of Stockton staff already posted a recruiting message for a new city attorney Thursday afternoon, Jan. 22, 2026, on that City’s Facebook page and offers candidates only one week to apply. It reads, “The City of Stockton is seeking to fill one (1) City Attorney vacancy and is looking for a dynamic, forward-thinking legal leader to join our executive team.
“The ideal candidate is a person of the highest integrity, committed to strong customer service, responsive to organizational needs, and transparent in all internal and external relationships.
“This role requires the ability to manage highly complex legal issues within a collaborative, fast-paced environment, while planning and directing the operations of the City Attorney’s Office and coordinating closely with City departments and divisions.
“Application Deadline: Jan 29 • 11:59 PM.”
Antioch Council Meeting Details
A Closed Session begins at 5:00 p.m. to discuss employee group contracts and the regular meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website and the City’s YouTube Channel, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99.
Kaiser says allegations related to Medicare risk adjustment resolved
“The settlement agreement reached with the Department of Justice contains no admission of wrongdoing and addresses historical Medicare Advantage documentation practices.”
By U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of California
SAN FRANCISCO — Affiliates of Kaiser Permanente, an integrated healthcare consortium headquartered in Oakland, California, have agreed to pay $556 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act by submitting invalid diagnosis codes for their Medicare Advantage Plan enrollees in order to receive higher payments from the government.
The settling Kaiser Permanente affiliates are Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc.; Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Colorado; The Permanente Medical Group Inc.; Southern California Permanente Medical Group; and Colorado Permanente Medical Group P.C. (collectively Kaiser).
Under the Medicare Advantage (MA) Program, also known as Medicare Part C, Medicare beneficiaries may opt out of traditional Medicare and enroll in private health plans offered by insurance companies known as Medicare Advantage Organizations, or MAOs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) pays the MAOs a fixed monthly amount for each Medicare beneficiary enrolled in their plans. CMS adjusts these monthly payments to account for various “risk” factors that affect expected health expenditures for the beneficiary. In general, CMS pays MAOs more for sicker beneficiaries expected to incur higher healthcare costs and less for healthier beneficiaries expected to incur lower costs. To make these “risk adjustments,” CMS collects medical diagnosis codes from the MAOs. The diagnoses must be supported by the medical record of a face-to-face visit between a patient and a provider, and for outpatient visits, must have required or affected patient care, treatment, or management at the visit.
Kaiser owns and operates MAOs that offer MA plans to beneficiaries across the country. In a complaint filed in the Northern District of California in October 2021, the United States alleged that Kaiser engaged in a scheme in California and Colorado to improperly increase its risk adjustment payments. Specifically, the United States alleged that Kaiser systematically pressured its physicians to alter medical records after patient visits to add diagnoses that the physicians had not considered or addressed at those visits, in violation of CMS rules.
“More than half of our nation’s Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans, and the government expects those who participate in the program to provide truthful and accurate information,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “Today’s resolution sends the clear message that the United States holds healthcare providers and plans accountable when they knowingly submit or cause to be submitted false information to CMS to obtain inflated Medicare payments.”
“Medicare Advantage is a vital program that must serve patients’ needs, not corporate profits,” said U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian for the Northern District of California. “Fraud on Medicare costs the public billions annually, so when a health plan knowingly submits false information to obtain higher payments, everyone — from beneficiaries to taxpayers — loses. We have an obligation to protect the American taxpayer from waste, fraud, and abuse and we will relentlessly pursue individuals and organizations that compromise the integrity of the Medicare program.”
“The federal government supports the health care of millions of beneficiaries by paying hundreds of billions of dollars every year to Medicare Advantage Plans,” said U.S. Attorney Peter McNeilly for the District of Colorado. “Medicare relies on the accuracy of the information submitted by those plans. This resolution sends a clear message that we will hold health care plans accountable if they seek to game the system and pad their profits by submitting false information.”
“Deliberately inflating diagnosis codes to boost profits is a serious violation of public trust and undermines the integrity of the Medicare Advantage program,” said Acting Deputy Inspector General for Investigations Scott J. Lampert at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (HHS-OIG). “This outcome demonstrates HHS-OIG’s commitment to protecting Medicare through a unified approach — leveraging the expertise of our investigators, auditors, and counsel, alongside our law enforcement partners. We will continue to hold accountable any entity that seeks to compromise the integrity of the risk adjustment program.”
“Healthcare programs funded by the public are meant to support patients, not pad corporate bottom lines. False claims and the submission of fraudulent information weaken the Medicare system and place an unfair cost on American taxpayers who expect honesty and accountability,” said Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani of the FBI San Francisco Field Office. “This settlement reflects the FBI’s continued commitment to holding accountable those who put profits over patients and abuse federal healthcare programs.”
The settlement announced today resolves allegations that, from 2009 to 2018, Kaiser engaged in a scheme to increase its Medicare reimbursements by pressuring physicians to add diagnoses after patient visits through “addenda” to patients’ medical records. The United States alleged that Kaiser developed various mechanisms to mine a patient’s past medical history to identify potential diagnoses that had not been submitted to CMS for risk adjustment. Kaiser then sent “queries” to its providers urging them to add these diagnoses to medical records via addenda, often months and sometimes over a year after visits. In many instances, the United States alleged, the diagnoses added by the providers had nothing to do with the patient visit in question, in violation of CMS requirements.
The United States further alleged that Kaiser set aggressive physician- and facility-specific goals for adding risk adjustment diagnoses. It alleged that Kaiser singled out underperforming physicians and facilities and emphasized that the failure to add diagnoses cost money for Kaiser, the facilities, and the physicians themselves. It also alleged that Kaiser linked physician and facility financial bonuses and incentives to meeting risk adjustment diagnosis goals.
The United States alleged that Kaiser knew that its addenda practices were widespread and unlawful. Kaiser ignored numerous red flags and internal warnings that it was violating CMS rules, including concerns raised by its own physicians that these were false claims and audits by its own compliance office identifying the issue of inappropriate addenda.
The civil settlement includes the resolution of certain claims brought in lawsuits under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Ronda Osinek and James M. Taylor, M.D., former employees of Kaiser. Under those provisions, private parties are permitted to sue on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. The qui tam cases are captioned United States ex rel. Osinek v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., No. 3:13-cv-03891 (N.D. Cal.) and United States ex rel. Taylor v. Kaiser Permanente, et al., No. 3:21-cv-03894 (N.D. Cal.). The relator share of the recovery will be $95 million.
The resolution obtained in this matter was the result of a coordinated effort between the Justice Department’s Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices for the Northern District of California and the District of Colorado, with assistance from HHS-OIG, HHS-Office of Audit Services, and the FBI.
The investigation and resolution of this matter illustrate the government’s emphasis on combating healthcare fraud. One of the most powerful tools in this effort is the False Claims Act. Tips and complaints from all sources about potential fraud, waste, abuse and mismanagement, can be reported to the Department of Health and Human Services at www.oig.hhs.gov/fraud/report-fraud/ or 800-HHS-TIPS (800-447-8477).
The matter was handled by Fraud Section Attorneys Braden Civins, Edward Crooke, Gary Dyal, Michael R. Fishman, Martha Glover, Seth W. Greene, Rachel Karpoff, Laurie Oberembt, and Jonathan Thrope, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Lo for the Northern District of California, with the assistance of Jonathan Birch and Alan Lopez, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kevin Traskos for the District of Colorado.
The claims resolved by the settlement are allegations only and there has been no determination of liability.
Kaiser Responds: Allegations Related to Medicare Risk Adjustment Resolved
On the organization’s website, Kaiser responded to the settlement with, “The settlement agreement reached with the Department of Justice contains no admission of wrongdoing and addresses historical Medicare Advantage documentation practices.
“Kaiser Permanente has reached a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice to resolve a dispute regarding certain documentation practices impacting some Medicare Advantage risk adjustment submissions between 2009 and 2018. The agreement resolves a False Claims Act lawsuit and has no admission of wrongdoing or liability. We chose to settle to avoid the delay, uncertainty, and cost of prolonged litigation.
“Multiple major health plans have faced similar government scrutiny over Medicare Advantage risk adjustment standards and practices, reflecting industrywide challenges in applying these requirements. The Kaiser Permanente case was not about the quality of care our members received. It involved a dispute about how to interpret the Medicare risk adjustment program’s documentation requirements.
“We remain unwavering in our mission to provide high-quality, affordable health care services and to improve the health of our members and the communities we serve.”
Asked if any of the affiliates operate in Northern California and were any of the hospitals in Contra Costa County included, Elissa Harrington, Senior Media Relations & Public Relations Representative for Kaiser Permanente Northern California, did not respond.
