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.

The settlements are associated with Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH), a class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and chiefs. As previously reported, Allen is one of four suspects convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson. He and a variety of other plaintiffs claimed civil rights violations by the officers.

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)

Plaintiffs in the suit included Shagoofa Khan, Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Zavala, the son of Guadalupe Zavala, who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by police in 2021 after a seven-hour stand-off with police (whose last name is listed in the lawsuit as Savala), as well as Allen and Terryonn Pugh, whose murder case resulted in the release of the texts.

Honored as the 2017 Antioch Youth of the Year, Khan was the subject of one of the vile texts, was one of the lead protesters in the city in 2020, and arrested a few times including at former Chief Tammany Brooks’ farewell party in September 2021, and another time for felony arson in January 2021, the incident for which she was granted a settlement payment by the City.

Allen and Pugh are serving 19 and 20 years in state prison, respectively, for attempted murder and voluntary manslaughter

Settlement Details in Order of Date Signed

Shaquille Hilliard Settlement Agreement dated March 10, 2025, for $37,500 over an incident on Jan.13, 2020.

Daniel Mackin Settlement Agreement dated March 10, 2025, for $650,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022. (See related articles here, here and here).

Mandingo Cain Settlement Agreement dated March 28, 2025, for $110,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Marcell Lewis Settlement Agreement dated April 1, 2025, for $55,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Gregorio Yarborough Settlement Agreement dated April 1, 2025, for $400,000 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Adam Carpenter Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $50,000 over an incident on Nov. 3, 2020. (See related article)

Shagoofa Khan Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $150,000 over an incident on Jan.15, 2021. (See related article)

Jamari Allen Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $600,000 over an incident on Aug. 21, 2021.

Joshua Butler Settlement Agreement dated April 8, 2025, for $65,000 over an incident on Feb. 3, 2022.

Terry Robinson, Jr. Settlement Agreement dated April 10, 2025, for $275,000 over an incident on July 1, 2022.

Danyel Lacy Settlement Agreement dated May 15, 2025, for $37,500 over an incident on July 3, 2022.

Dreshawn Jackson Settlement Agreement dated May 29, 2025, for $225,000 over an incident on Feb. 12, 2018.

Kardell Smith Settlement Agreement dated June 11, 2025, for $650,000 over an incident in 2019.

Jessie Wilson Settlement Agreement dated June 20, 2025, for $475,000 over an incident on Aug. 24, 2021.

Dejon Richards Settlement Agreement dated June 20, 2025, for $80,000 over an incident on Sept. 21, 2023.

Quincy Mason Settlement Agreement dated July 23, 2025, for $125,000 over incidents on Sept. 12, 2018, and Dec. 1, 2020.

Additional Settlements for Two Serving Sentences for Voluntary Homicide

Terryonn Pugh Settlement Agreement dated April 11, 2025, for $500,000 and Trent Allen Settlement Agreement dated May 11, 2025, for $725,000 over an incident on March 31, 2021. (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.”

See KTVU FOX2 video of the Dec. 19th press conference.

Questions for Council, Staff

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.

To expand access to justice countywide

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.”

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.

See complete meeting agenda packet.

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.

Further Information:

Case Nos. 3:13-cv-03891, 3:21-cv-03894

Electronic court filings and further procedural and docket information are available at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl.  Judges’ calendars with schedules for upcoming court hearings can be viewed on the court’s website at www.cand.uscourts.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Investigate the operations of local government officers, departments and agencies

Application deadline: March 13, 2026

By Contra Costa County Grand Jurors Association

The Contra Costa County Superior Court is accepting applications for Civil Grand Jury Service for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 term.

Contra Costa County’s Grand Jury consists of 19 citizens. A new Grand Jury is impaneled each year. Grand Jurors are officers of the Court, and function as an independent body under the guidance of a Superior Court Judge. Jurors are impaneled in June and are expected to attend a two-week training in June. Each term serves through June of the following calendar year.

Every year, in each of California’s 58 counties, a group of ordinary citizens takes an oath to serve as grand jurors. Its function is to investigate the operations of the various officers, departments and agencies of local government. Each Civil Grand Jury determines which officers, departments and agencies it will investigate during its term of office.

Apart from the investigations mandated by the California Penal Code, each County’s Grand Jury decides what it will investigate. Investigations may be initiated in response to letters from citizens, newspaper articles and personal knowledge.

If you are interested in applying, please complete the application and review the timeline below.

https://contracosta.courts.ca.gov/…/2026-2027-cgj…

https://contracosta.courts.ca.gov/…/6-timeline-2026…

Application deadline is 5:00 PM on March 13, 2026.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Includes major regions such as the Bay Area, Stockton, Santa Rosa, Sacramento, Modesto, Madera, Fresno, Bakersfield, Ventura/Oxnard, Salinas, Los Angeles and San Diego

By Karla Fernandez, Public Relations, Market My Market

New Year’s Eve is consistently one of the deadliest nights of the year to be on the road. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, alcohol-impaired driving accounts for about 37% of traffic deaths during the New Year’s holiday period, with fatal crashes peaking during late-night hours between 9 p.m. and 3 a.m.

Nationwide, the National Safety Council projects more than 500 traffic fatalities during major holiday travel periods, and NHTSA reports that roughly one-third involve alcohol-impaired drivers – a risk that intensifies during overnight celebrations like New Year’s Eve.

To help reduce that risk, Setareh Law is offering free Uber rides (up to $20 each) across eligible California counties, giving people a safe way to get home on New Year’s Eve without getting behind the wheel.

This initiative is part of a broader community safety effort aimed at reducing impaired driving and helping more people get home safely during one of the busiest travel nights of the year.

Daniel Setareh, Founder of Setareh Law, explains, “New Year’s Eve is a time for celebration, not tragedy. After fighting for justice for families who have been forever impacted by impaired drivers, we want to do our part to help prevent these accidents before they happen. If one free ride will keep someone safe, then this effort is worth every bit of it.”

Here’s How It Works (Step by Step):

Step 1: Request Your Voucher

Fill out the short form on the official campaign page to request your Uber voucher. Once approved, you’ll receive a unique Uber voucher link by email.

Step 2: Add Your Voucher to the Uber App

Click the link in your email and the voucher will automatically load into your Uber app.

Step 3: Take Your Free Ride (Dec 31–Jan 1)

Use the voucher anytime between:

5:00 PM on December 31 through 10:00 AM on January 1

Your ride must start or end in one of the eligible California counties.

Eligibility Requirements:

To qualify for the free ride, users must:

• Be 21 years or older
• Have an active Uber account
• Take the ride during the campaign window (Dec 31–Jan 1)
• Start or end the ride in an eligible California county
• Limit: one voucher per Uber account
• Offer is limited to the first 300 vouchers

The voucher covers one one-way ride up to $20 (tip not included).

Eligible California Counties

Contra Costa, Alameda, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Sacramento, Fresno, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Sonoma, Kern, Ventura, Monterey, and Madera, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego.

Only rides that start or end in an eligible county will qualify. The Uber app will automatically prevent the voucher from applying outside approved areas.

About Setareh Law

Setareh Law, APLC, is a California-based personal injury law firm dedicated to representing individuals and families harmed by negligence. Founded by attorney Daniel Setareh, the firm handles serious injury cases including car accidents, drunk-driving crashes, catastrophic injuries, and wrongful death. With offices across California, Setareh Law is committed to providing hands-on legal representation, personalized client care, and strong advocacy both inside and outside the courtroom.

Historic class-action victory permanently blocks gender secrecy, restores parental rights

“…the federal court found, no such right can constitutionally override the fundamental rights of parents or the protections afforded to teachers under the U.S. Constitution…School boards and administrators must revise their policies immediately to comply…” – California Family Council

By Thomas More Society

San Diego, CA- In a landmark class-action ruling, Thomas More Society achieved a historic victory in Mirabelli, et al. v. Olson, et al., ending California’s gender secrecy policies and restoring transparency and parental involvement in public education. The decision and federal court order issuing a class-wide permanent injunction—issued by U.S. District Court Judge Roger T. Benitez just days before Christmas—secures justice not only for teachers Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West who began the lawsuit, but for all parents and teachers harmed by these policies statewide.

Elizabeth and Lori, faithful Christians with decades of teaching experience, loved their jobs and dedicated themselves to helping children thrive in the classroom. Under California’s Parental Exclusion Policies, children had an unqualified right to engage in a social transition to the opposite gender at school—forcing all teachers to use opposite-sex pronouns and a new name—and teachers were required to conceal that gender transition from the child’s parents absent the child’s affirmative consent.  

This placed Elizabeth and Lori in an impossible position: lie to parents in violation of their faith and ethics, or risk retaliation and ultimately, their jobs. Believing it violated their sacred duty to protect students’ health, safety, and trust, they turned to Thomas More Society and filed suit. Now, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California has agreed, noting that “California’s education policymakers may be experts on primary and secondary education but they would not receive top grades as students of Constitutional Law.”

“Today’s incredible victory finally, and permanently, ends California’s dangerous and unconstitutional regime of gender secrecy policies in schools,” said Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “The Court’s comprehensive ruling—granting summary judgment on all claims—protects all California parents, students, and teachers, and it restores sanity and common sense. With this decisive ruling from Judge Benitez, all state and local school officials that mandate gender secrecy policies should cease all enforcement or face severe legal consequences.”  

“Elizabeth, Lori, and the parents who stepped forward as class representatives to fight for families everywhere are true heroes,” Jonna added. “Whether facing professional retaliation or protecting their own children, they never wavered in their commitment to faith, family, and the truth. They challenged a system that forced deception and put children at risk. Thanks to their courage, truth and justice prevailed and these unconstitutional policies can now finally be placed in the dustbin of history.”

“We are profoundly grateful for today’s ruling,” said Elizabeth Mirabelli and Lori West in a joint statement. “This has been a long and difficult journey, and we are humbled by the support we’ve received along the way. We want to extend our deepest thanks to Thomas More Society and to everyone who stood by us, prayed for us, and encouraged us from the very beginning.”

“We loved our jobs, our students, and the school communities we served,” Mirabelli and West continued. “But we were forced into an impossible position when school officials demanded that we lie to parents—violating not only our faith, but also the trust that must exist between teachers and families. No educator should ever be placed in that situation. This victory is not just ours. It is a win for honesty, transparency, and the fundamental rights of teachers and parents. We are so thankful that this chapter is finally closed and that justice has prevailed.”

“The State knew this was a losing legal battle and tried to pull out every lawyer’s trick in the book to avoid responsibility,” added Jeffrey M. Trissell, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and attorney at LiMandri & Jonna LLP. “The Court saw right through this blatant gamesmanship. It’s an absurdity that California elected officials went out of their way to deceive parents and punish honest and faithful educators who dared to challenge their twisted political agenda.”

As the case progressed, numerous parents who had been directly harmed by these policies approached Thomas More Society. One family who joined the lawsuit only learned that their child was being addressed by a different name at school after a tragic suicide attempt. Recognizing the sweeping nature of the constitutional violations, the Court certified the lawsuit as a class action, meaning that every California parent and teacher who objects to these policies now receives justice.

“This case exposed a troubling pattern of agenda-driven adults injecting political ideology into schools, undermining trust between educators and parents, and ultimately harming children,” said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “Most reasonable people agree: schools should be about teaching the basics—reading, writing, arithmetic—not confusing students about gender identity. This ruling restores focus to real education and honoring the centuries-long belief that parents alone have the right to direct their child’s moral and religious upbringing, as reaffirmed by the Supreme Court this year.”

The case also revealed the extreme lengths California education officials went to evade responsibility. They misled the court by claiming these policies were no longer enforced, only to be caught red-handed enforcing them in mandatory teacher training a week before the summary judgment hearing on November 17. As a result, the Court’s order specifically directs California to add the following statement “in a prominent place” in that training:  

“Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence. Teachers and school staff have a federal constitutional right to accurately inform the parent or guardian of their student when the student expresses gender incongruence. These federal constitutional rights are superior to any state or local laws, state or local regulations, or state or local policies to the contrary.”

“Thomas More Society is proud to have represented Elizabeth, Lori, and the anonymous plaintiffs: Teacher Jane Roe, Teacher Jane Boe, the Poe Family and the Doe Family,” said Breen. “They never sought to be the face of this fight, yet their courage has transformed the lives of families and educators not only in California but perhaps the entire country. We will always defend the religious freedom of teachers and families and ensure that parents retain their constitutional right to raise their children in alignment with their families’ values.”

California Family Council Applauds Ruling

In response to the ruling, the California Family Council (CFC) wrote: State Officials Promoted Secrecy – For years, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and other state leaders have insisted that schools must conceal information about a student’s gender identity or expression from their parents. On the Attorney General’s own website, the state asserts a sweeping individual “right” to conceal gender identity, including from parents:

“You have the right to disclose – or not disclose – your gender identity on your own terms, regardless of your age. Your school, whether public or private, doesn’t have the right to ‘out’ you as LGBTQ+ to anyone without your permission, including your parents.” California DOJ

This statement was widely disseminated and used to justify secrecy policies and trainings across districts.

Yet, as the federal court found, no such right can constitutionally override the fundamental rights of parents or the protections afforded to teachers under the U.S. Constitution.

Greg Burt, CFC Vice President, hailed the ruling as justice finally upheld in the face of longstanding statewide resistance: “This ruling vindicates what parents’ rights advocates have been saying all along. The state told schools they had to keep secrets from moms and dads, and that was never true. A federal judge has now made it unmistakably clear: children do not belong to the government, parents have the right to know what’s happening with their own kids, and teachers should never be forced to lie or stay silent to keep their jobs.”

The Constitutional Holding

Judge Benitez’s ruling is comprehensive and unequivocal. The court held that California’s gender-secrecy regime, as applied in public schools, violates:

• Parents’ fundamental rights to direct the upbringing and education of their children
• Teachers’ First Amendment rights to free speech and religious exercise
• And core constitutional principles protecting family autonomy

According to the court, forcing teachers to actively hide critical information from parents is not a neutral policy but affirmative state interference in the parent-child relationship, something the Constitution forbids.

Impact on Schools and Parents

This decision forces a dramatic policy shift across California’s public education system:

• District secrecy policies can no longer be enforced.
• Parents and guardians have a federal constitutional right to be informed if their public school student child expresses gender incongruence.
• Teachers may now freely disclose to parents when a student expresses gender incongruence or assumes a different gender identity at school.
• State officials can no longer legally claim that schools are “required” to conceal such information.

School boards and administrators must revise their policies immediately to comply with the constitutional rights affirmed by the court or risk legal consequences.

Read the Order Granting Plaintiffs Motion for Class-Wide Permanent Injunction.

Read the Order Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of Plaintiffs, Declaring Constitutional Rights, and Granting a Permanent Injunction.

About Thomas More Society

According to the organization’s website, “Since 1998, Thomas More Society has steadfastly preserved the rich heritage of American liberty. Our distinguished track record showcases an unwavering commitment to defending your fundamental rights to life, family, and freedom. For decades, we’ve passionately championed the causes of everyday individuals confronting remarkable injustices, from the sidewalks and town squares to the Supreme Court.” For more information visit www.thomasmoresociety.org.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Agreement aligns with U.S. DOJ reforms; subject to court approval; this part of case only includes attorney’s fees

By Allen D. Payton

The City of Antioch announced Friday morning, Dec. 19, 2025, it has reached a settlement agreement “that strengthens accountability and transparency in the Antioch Police Department (APD) through updated policies, independent oversight and measurable reporting. The agreement is structured to align with the U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) governing APD reforms.”

The settlement is subject to court approval and is associated with Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California (Case No. 3:23-cv-01895-TSH), a class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and chiefs. As previously reported, Allen is one of four suspects convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson. He and a variety of other plaintiffs claimed civil rights violations by the officers.

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)

The plaintiffs included Shagoofa Khan, the 2017 Antioch Youth of the Year who was one of the lead protesters in the city in 2020, was arrested a few times including once for felony arson in January 2021 and at former Chief Tammany Brooks’ farewell party later that year, and was the subject of one of the vile texts; Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Zavala, the son of Guadalupe Zavala, who was unarmed when he was shot and killed by police in 2021 after a seven-hour stand-off with police (whose last name is listed in the lawsuit as Savala), and Allen, whose murder case resulted in the release of the texts.

The suit described what occurred between the named Antioch Police officers and the plaintiffs as a “conspiracy and/or conspiracies” and claims they were “the failure and/or refusal (by the former chiefs)…to prevent or aid in preventing” them from occurring. The suit further claimed the four department leaders “maintained customs, policies, and/or practices which encouraged, authorized, condoned, ratified, failed to prevent, and/or failed to aid in the prevention of wrongs conspired to be done by” the named officers.

The suit sought multiple forms of damages including “past, present and/or future wage loss, income and support, medical expenses”; special damages, any and all permissible statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees. 

UPDATE & CORRECTION: According to City Manager Bessie Scott, the settlement does not include any money. But she later shared the City will pay attorney’s fees. Then during the press conference on Friday, Dec. 19, Burris said, “There were two parts of the case, one involving the individuals, which we settled, 23,” earlier in the year. Those did involve payments which will be reported on later once City staff has provided a response to the Public Records Act request by the Herald.

Independent Consultant to Oversee Settlement Provisions

The settlement will be administered by the same independent consultant responsible for oversight under the U.S. DOJ MOA to ensure coordinated implementation and consistent monitoring.

The independent consultant will oversee APD’s implementation of the settlement’s provisions, including providing technical assistance, reviewing affected policies, and issuing regular reports on APD’s progress toward substantial compliance. The independent consultant will also ensure APD remains in substantial compliance for the required period of time. If APD is not making adequate progress, the monitor may seek further orders of the court to compel compliance.

The independent consultant is required to report to the City Council every six months. Reports to Council will be public. The City also anticipates public reporting related to community engagement/community policing efforts and statistics on traffic stops and police interactions related to use of force.

“This settlement agreement reinforces the reform work already underway, ensures sustainable transparency measures and updates core policies to modernize how APD continues to provide constitutional policing services to the residents of Antioch,” said Scott.

“This agreement will ensure we continue prioritizing the community and safety,” said Chief of Police Joe Vigil. “We will continue working towards greater transparency, accountability and community engagement as we work through this agreement.”

Chief Vigil Says “Agreement Emphasizes Clear and Fair Policy”

In his remarks prepared for and offered during the press conference, Vigil further said, “I want to begin by thanking Mr. Burris and his staff, The City of Antioch staff, Mr. Rosenbaum and his staff. Through a collaborative and productive process, we reached an agreement that will help ensure the Police Department continues to improve how we approach policy, how we conduct our work, and how we serve our community.

“This agreement emphasizes clear and fair policy, the use of data, metrics, and analysis to guide decision-making, with community trust and public safety as our top priorities. As we move into the new year, we remain committed to ongoing community engagement and to strengthening transparency and accountability. Thank you, and I appreciate everyone’s time and partnership.”

Key elements of the settlement include:

Expanded transparency and oversight

• Data collection and analysis requirements
• Audits and reviews
• Reporting requirements to track progress and compliance

Policy and procedure updates to modernize APD operations

• Non-discriminatory policing
• Use of force, including canine deployment
• Hiring and promotions
• Complaint intake, review, and resolution
• Supervisor responsibilities and accountability
• Police officer communications
• Body-worn camera use

Community engagement

• Provisions to expand APD’s community engagement and support accountability through public-facing practices.

The City will provide additional information as implementation milestones are established.

Jaden Baird, City of Antioch PIO contributed to this report.