Finalize agreement to expand DOJ-required monitoring consultant’s contract

Consider potential whistleblower lawsuit

By Allen D. Payton

During a special meeting Monday, August 31, 2026, the Antioch City Council will consider hiring an Economic Development Director and forming a separate Economic Development Department, again. They will also finalize the discussion and vote on expanding the contract with the monitoring consultant required by the settlement agreements with the U.S. Department of Justice, City of Antioch and police department. That will follow a Closed Session to discuss the lawsuit by the natural gas pipeline company and a potential lawsuit by a City employee whistleblower.

Economic Development Director & Department Redo

Under Item 2. on the Special Meeting agenda, the Council will consider once again forming an Economic Development Department and hiring a director for it, following its merger with the Community Development Department by City Manager Bessie Scott, last year.

It also follows the current vacancy in the position of Director of the Community and Economic Development Department since March 3, 2026, when Zach Seal was no longer in the position after being hired less than six months earlier. (See related article)

According to the City staff report, the Council “has identified economic development as an important policy priority, including business attraction and retention, investment recruitment, development incentives, redevelopment, workforce partnerships and strategies to strengthen the City’s economic base. At the August 25th budget study session, City Council expressed the desire to explore separating Economic Development from Community Development and re-establishing a separate department with its own Director to have a focused strategy…at a time when economic development and revenue generation are most vital to the City.”

The staff report continues, “the Fiscal Year 2026/27 Economic Development division in the Community and Economic Development Department includes $436,759 in personnel budget for three positions: Senior Economic Development Program Manager, Economic Development Program Manager and Economic Development Specialist. Projected vacancy savings were built into the 2026/27 budget figure assuming it would take several months to fill the positions. There could be a budget impact should City Council decide to add back the Director position.”

The recommended organizational structure of the department would include an Economic Development Director, Senior Economic Development Coordinator and Specialist, eliminating the position and cost for the Economic Development Program Manager.

The staff report also shared, the current salary range for the Antioch Economic Development Director is $13,021-$15,828 per month, which is on the low end of a salary comparison with surrounding cities that’s included. “If a new salary range were established beyond that, it should fall within Antioch’s existing range of executive leadership salaries. If City Council would desire to increase the existing established salary range for the department’s Director, it is recommended to be at a range of $14,185-$17,242, slightly above Brentwood and within the City’s existing structure. The 2026/27 estimated annual salary and benefit cost of the position at this range at Step E would be $393,027.”

Monitoring Consultant Contract

After discussing then postponing the matter during their Aug. 25th meeting, under Item 1 on the Special Meeting agenda, the Council will again consider approving the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with MS Investigative Services and Consulting, LLC, to expand the scope of services to include Independent Monitoring services required under the Allen Settlement Agreement (ASA); and authorizing an additional annual compensation amount of $150,000 for ASA monitoring services and associated Fiscal Year 2026/27 General Fund budget amendment.

According the company’s website, the Principal, Manjit Sappal “served in three California police departments, culminating in his tenure as Chief of Police for the City of Martinez…he also served twice as Interim City Manager…oversaw all municipal departments and guided the City through strategic budget initiatives, ballot measures, and community safety priorities.”

He earned a Master’s degree in Public Administration, a CA Private Investigator License, he’s a Certified Protection Professional, a graduate of the FBI National Academy Session 241 and the Police Executive Research Forum Senior Management Institute and has received DEA Federal Law Enforcement Analysis Training and CA Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Executive, Management, Supervisory, Advance, Intermediate and Basic.

According to the City staff report, “The existing Professional Services Agreement…provides compensation of up to $250,000 annually for consulting and monitoring services required under the USDOJ Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The proposed First Amendment increases compensation by $150,000 annually to compensate the Consultant for the expanded monitoring responsibilities required under the Allen Settlement Agreement. The additional compensation will be paid hourly at the rate of $210 not to exceed $150,000.”

If the First Amendment is approved, total annual compensation for monitoring services under both agreements will not exceed $400,000 annually. Amending the contract requires a Fiscal Year 2026/27 General Fund budget amendment of $150,000 which will increase the projected deficit of $4,567,879 by $150,000. Funding for future years will be included in draft budgets brought forth for consideration.

Background

According to the City staff report, in April 2023, the USDOJ initiated an investigation into the Antioch Police Department following the public disclosure of text messages exchanged by Antioch police officers containing racist, sexist and discriminatory language. As a result, in Jan. 2025, the City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department and the USDOJ entered into the MOA, requiring implementation of reforms related to constitutional policing, accountability systems, data collection, complaint investigations, community engagement, hiring practices, supervision and oversight.

A key component of the MOA required the City and the USDOJ to jointly select an Independent Consultant to provide technical assistance, compliance monitoring and implementation oversight. Following a competitive and joint evaluation process with USDOJ representatives, MS Investigative Services and Consulting, LLC was selected as the Independent Consultant.

Then, on March 27, 2026, the City entered into the Settlement Agreement in Allen et al. v. City of Antioch, et al, a class action civil rights lawsuit. The Settlement Agreement incorporates many of the same constitutional policing reforms and accountability measures already required under the DOJ MOA and expressly requires that the existing DOJ Monitor also serve as the Monitor under the ASA.

See Final Allen Settlement Agreement.

As previously reported, Allen is one of four individuals convicted of the 2021 murder of Arnold Marcel Hawkins and the attempted murder of Aaron Patterson and it was that case which resulted in the release of the police officers’ texts. Allen and a variety of other plaintiffs claimed civil rights violations by the officers. A settlement between the City and their attorneys was announced Dec. 19, 2025.

The monitoring consultant submitted the Antioch Police Department’s First Compliance Report in April this year, pursuant to the MOA signed January 2, 2025. The report assesses the Department’s compliance with the MOA for the reporting from that date through March 31, 2026.

That followed the police department’s Self-Assessment Report 1 issued by Chief Joe Vigil on October 15, 2025.

Closed Session

During their Closed Session meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m., under Item 1. the Council will hold a Conference with Legal Counsel on existing litigation by the California Resources Pipeline Corporation (CPRC) v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court Case No. MSN21-2354. The lawsuit continues following the Antioch City Council’s 4-0 vote during their meeting on July 28, 2026, to deny the company’s Encroachment Permit Appeal. CPRC is the owner of the low-pressure, natural gas pipeline that runs under the city and has been shut off since 2021. (See related articles here, here and here)

Under Item 2., the Council will hear about and discuss “Significant exposure to one case of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(e)(2). The staff report 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 or plaintiffs pertaining to possible Labor Code Section 1102.5, and Fair Employment and Housing Act violations.” According to Employment Law Aid, “California Labor Code § 1102.5 protects whistleblowers who report violations.”

Meeting Details

Before entering Closed Session and during their Regular Meeting, which begins at 6:30 p.m., the Council will meet in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, and both can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on the City’s YouTube channel or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See complete agenda packet.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Says “the District Board wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

By Allen D. Payton

The Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit (CABAT) organized to oppose the Regional Transit Measure (RTM) on the November ballot filed a lawsuit, Monday, against Election Officials in the five included counties and Kimberly Ward, the Public Transit Revenue Measure District Elections Official. If approved by voters, the tax measure, known as Connect Bay Area Transit, will raise a half-cent in four of the five counties, including Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Mateo and one-cent in San Francisco County for 14 years and raise an estimated $17 billion.

Labeled a VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, the lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court by 10 petitioners including former State Senator Quentin L. Kopp, Gregg A. Diéguez, President of CABAT and Marc Joffe, President of the Contra Costa Taxpayers Association, as well as Brian Holtz, Thomas Rubin and five others listed as individuals and electors in the Public Transit Revenue Measure District.

Kopp is also President of the San Francisco Taxpayers Association; Holtz is President of the Purissima Hills Water District Board of Directors in Santa Clara County and Secretary and Treasurer of the Libertarian Party of Santa Clara County; and Rubin is Vice President of the Alameda County Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Attorney Jason Bezis of Lafayette is representing them.

The District was formed to oversee the process for the transit tax measure. (See related article) A separate oversight committee will be formed to verify proper expenditure of the funds should the measure pass.

The lawsuit was filed before “the final printing deadline date” of “Friday, August 28, 2026, by which all ballot language and County Voter Information Guides (CVIG) materials must be finalized, including resolving any legal challenges in court.”

Transit Officials Were Warned But Did It Anyway

According to Joffe, “Transit officials cannot claim they were blindsided. On the night of July 23, 2026, the eve of the board’s special meeting, attorney Bezis sent a detailed pre-litigation demand letter urging the board not to approve the question as drafted.  The letter was acknowledged multiple times and the measure was placed on the ballot with the slanted wording anyway.”

Legal Claims

The lawsuit “challenges biased, not neutral, untrue, partial, argumentative, and/or prejudicial wording in the RTM Ballot Question (also called ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) in violation of the Elections Code sections 9051(e) and 13119(c) standards and false and/or misleading wording in the RTM Ballot Question under the Elections Code section 9380/McDonough v. Superior Court (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (‘McDonough’) standard. This lawsuit also challenges the Impartial Analysis authored by real party in interest DISTRICT Counsel KATHLEEN KANE as false, misleading, and/or not impartial in violation of Elections Code section 9380.”

The petitioners “seek a writ of mandate to compel amendment of the ballot question (also known as ‘ballot label’ or ‘statement of the measure’) and the impartial analysis that Respondents COUNTY ELECTIONS OFFICIALS and Ms. WARD are preparing for voter use in the Regional Transit Measure (‘RTM’) election to be held on November 3, 2026.”

Further, the lawsuit claims, “Petitioners assert that the DISTRICT and DISTRICT BOARD wrote the RTM Ballot Question…in a way that is intentionally confusing or misleading to voters.”

Current Ballot Language

The lawsuit explains, “As approved by the PTRMD BOARD at its July 24, 2026 meeting, the RTM Ballot Question (see District Resolution No. 2 Page 7) currently reads:

‘To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit, avoid increased traffic, and reduce pollution by: Preserving BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness, affordability, reliability; Repairing targeted roads/potholes; Requiring financial transparency, oversight, accountability; shall the measure enacting a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties), and 1% (San Francisco) sales tax for 14 years generating approximately $980,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

Challenges & Proposed Changes

However, the petitioners claim the adopted ballot language does not comply with state Elections Code and the amount is incorrect and should instead be $1.2 million per year. They claim the statement of the measure is not “a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure,” is “argumentative” and “likely to create prejudice for or against the measure,” and that the “RTM Ballot question is inherently prejudicial” based on a survey MTC conducted last year. Furthermore, the petitioners “argue that components of the RTM Ballot Question are false and/or misleading.”

They want to make the following changes:

• Amend the phrase “Preserving BART …” to read “Funding BART …”
• Delete the phrase “for everyone, including workers, students, seniors, persons with disabilities”.
• Delete the phrase “To prevent major service cuts to BART and other transit”.
• Alternatively, strike the word “major” in the phrase “To prevent major service cuts …”
• Delete the phrase “avoid increased traffic”.
• Delete the phrase “reduce pollution”.
• Strike the phrase “/potholes”.
• Amend “Repairing targeted roads” to read “Repaving transit-served roads”.
• Strike the words “affordability, reliability”.
• Amend “enacting” to read “imposing”.
• Amend the phrase “sales tax” to read “sales and use tax”.
• Strike the word “oversight” in the phrase “Requiring … oversight”.
• Strike the word “accountability” in the phrase “Requiring … accountability”.
• Amend “$980,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimate) to an updated number (an August 2026 estimate) or “$1,200,000,000 annually” (September 2025 estimates, averaged over 14 years).

Alternative Ballot Language

The lawsuit offers the following ballot language alternatives:

“If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually, be adopted?’”

The lawsuit further reads, “If the Court were to order all of the amendments and corrections suggested by Petitioners supra, including use of the ‘Shall the measure … be adopted?’ format, the RTM Ballot Question would read:

‘Shall the measure imposing a 0.5% (Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo, Santa Clara counties) and 1% (San Francisco) sales and use tax for 14 years generating approximately $1,200,000,000 annually; Funding BART, Caltrain, VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, Muni, other transit; Supporting transit safety, cleanliness; Repaving transit-serving roads; Requiring financial transparency; be adopted?’”

The petitioners also claim the “RTM Impartial Analysis is partial, false, and/or misleading” and that it should be written by either the California Attorney General, a county counsel or district attorney instead of Kathleen Kane who is he legal counsel for the District.

“Supporters of the Transit Measure need to use misleading advertising because voters won’t pass the measure if they have the real story that it is a regressive tax falling hardest on seniors and low-income families for 14 years,” Dieguez stated.

“Voters deserve the honest description the law guarantees them, and if the district won’t provide it, a court should,” Joffe added

See the Public Transit Revenue Measure District’s Legal Counsel RTM Impartial Analysis.

See RTM-Ballot-Question-Lawsuit-Aug-17.pdf.

For more information about CABAT visit Committee for Affordable Bay Area Transit.

The election is Tuesday, Nov. 3.

Several related to alleged police civil rights violations

Will also discuss city attorney performance evaluation

By Allen D. Payton

During a special closed session meeting on Thursday, June 18, 2026, the Antioch City Council will meet with legal counsel to discuss 41 existing lawsuits, 16 potential lawsuits and the performance evaluation of City Attorney Lori Asuncion. The meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers before adjourning behind closed doors.

Some of the lawsuits were among those also discussed by the city council during their meeting on Dec. 19, 2024.

Existing Lawsuits

1) Jayson Robinson v. Antioch Unified School District, Antioch Water Park, City of Antioch, Contra Costa Superior Court, (Case No.C20-02420). – Former student with a heart disorder who almost drowned during a class outing. (See related article)

2) 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). – Ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit against the City, as well as police officers and former chiefs. Plaintiffs also include Shagoofa Khan, Adam Carpenter, Joshua Butler, Diego Savala, Kardell Smith, Dejon Richards, Dreshawn Jackson and David Mackin. Defendants also include former Police Chiefs Tammany Brooks, Tony Morefield, Steven Ford, and former officers Josh Evans, Eric Rombough, Morteza Amiri, Scott Duggar, John Ramirez, Timothy Manly Williams, Tom Lenderman, Loren Bledsoe and Thomas Smith. 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 the other plaintiffs claim civil rights violations by the officers. The case appeared to be settled last year. But, without explanation from City staff, continues to be adjudicated. (See Settlement and related articles here and here)

3) Ashika Kanji v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00795). Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit.

4) Reagan DeGuzman v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C23-00666).

5) Nicholas Warner v. County of Contra Costa, City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-02689). According to an EINPresswire report, “a bicyclist was injured when a designated bike lane was abruptly blocked by a locked metal gate located in an insufficiently illuminated section of (a developing) roadway.” According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges he was injured while riding a bicycle between 10:30 and 11:00 pm on property owned by the City of Antioch” and amount demanded is $35,000. New home developer “K. Hovnanian plans to file a cross-complaint against Teichert Construction, Inc. and/or All Commercial Fence, Inc., the parties responsible for erecting and/or maintaining the gate alleged to have caused the injury.”.

6) Susan Shintaku v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-00356).

7) O.Y. a Decedent, et al., v. Contra Costa County, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 3:24-cv-05154-PHK). Civil rights lawsuit by plaintiffs A.Y. a minor, W.Y. a minor and O.Y. a decedent. Defendants include Jessika Fulcher, Sr Worren Young, City of Antioch, Contra Costa County, Flynne Lewis, Raji Ponnaluri, Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation, Colleen Sullivan and The Learning Center.

8) Jordan Davis v. County of Contra Costa, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No.4:21-cv-04651). The complaint, filed on June 16, 2021, alleges civil rights violations. Defendants include County of Contra Costa, Nicole Martinez, Brian Rose, Ashley Crandall, Vernita James, Hutchings Christian, City of Antioch.

9) Nirvana Allen v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C22-02401).

10) Lamar Young v. Sgt. Stenger, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 21-cv-08131-DMR).  Young is one of two brothers arrested in 2020 for a brutal sexual assault of a woman and convicted in 2022 of sex crimes and robbery. (See related articles here and here).

According to court documents, this is a civil rights case filed Aug. 15, 2023, by self-represented Plaintiff Lamar Young. He alleges “that the following Defendants employed by the Antioch Police Department (“APD”) used excessive force against him during an interrogation on October 29, 2020, in West County Detention Center in Contra Costa County: Sergeant James Stenger; and Detectives Kelly Inabnett, Mellone, and Bledsoe.Plaintiff asserts that during the interrogation, he refused Defendants’ request that he put on a mask in order for them to take a photograph of him wearing it.Plaintiff alleges that when he refused to put on the mask, Stenger, Mellone and Bledsoe forced him to wear it, using excessive force against him in the process. Plaintiff further claims that Inabnett failed to intervene to stop the use of excessive force. Plaintiff also alleges a state law claim of negligence against Stenger for failing to prevent a ‘safety issue’.”

11) Jessie Wilson and Dajon Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California, (Case No. 4:24-cv-02758-JSW). A federal civil rights lawsuit filed on May 8, 2024, against the City of Antioch, and individual, now former, police officers Morteza Amiri, Eric Rombough, and Devon Wenger, former Chief Tammany Brooks and DOES 1-50.

12) Pat Stack, et al., v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01065).

13) Mary Reed v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C24-01367).

14) Marilou Gecale v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01383).

15) Michael Sweets v. Antioch Police Department, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (Civil Action No. 24-9275 VC). According to Justia.com, the case is a Prisoner: Civil Rights complaint filed by Michael Sweets, a pretrial detainee at West County Detention Facility in Contra Costa County. The case involves allegations of false arrest and search and seizure of Sweets’s vehicle.

16) Estate of Linda Woolridge, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01750). The case arose from the tragic death of Woolridge, a 29‑year‑old mother of two, who was fatally struck by a drunk driver, Antioch resident Alexander Mayorga, while riding her bicycle on Lone Tree Way in the early morning of July 27, 2024. (See related Herald articles here, here and here)

17) Kathryn Wade, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for Northern California (Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-03200-TSH). – Filed by Wade on April 9, 2025, other plaintiffs include S.B., China Young, Adrian Arroyo and Brandon Lopez. Defendants named in the suit include City of Antioch, current or former Chief A. Morefield, Chief Tammany Brooks, Sgt. Evans, Sgt. Jimmy Wisecarver, Sgt. Stenger, Officers Kelly Inabnett, Aaron Hughes, Morteza Amiri, Devon Wenger, Eric Allen Rombough, Jacob Ewart and Michael Mellone.

According to the East Bay Times, Wade previously sued the City and two police officers, Michael Mellone and Jacob Ewart, in March 2023. The Antioch City Council voted in November 2024 to pay Wade $349,000 as part of a settlement. She claimed her son Malad Baldwin was assaulted by Antioch Police Department officers in 2014.

“The lawsuit said that Baldwin was seated in Wade’s car, which was parked in front of their house, when two Antioch police officers — James Colley and Casey Brogdon — approached the car, opened the passenger door and yanked Baldwin out. The two officers then kicked and beat him with a flashlight even after he lost consciousness, court documents state. Wade, who was present during the incident, also reportedly sustained physical and mental injuries.

“In her complaint, Wade claimed that apart from the alleged assault of Baldwin, Antioch officer Santiago Castillo had also verbally assaulted and pointed a gun at her while she was in a wheelchair that same month. She also alleged that Baldwin was again beaten at least three times in September and December of 2019, as well as in March 2020.”

Baldwin, who, according to Localcrimenews.com, had been arrested multiple times between 2014 and 2020, died March 13, 2021. However, according to his mother, he was never convicted of a crime.

18) Angelia Baxter v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-02194). According to Law.com, the personal injury lawsuit is for damages arising from an incident that occurred on city property or premises.

19) Espiridion Puga v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03209).

20) Jonathan Smith v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (case No. 4:25-cv05572-KAW). Civil rights lawsuit.

21) Antioch Police Officers Association v. City of Antioch, Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N23-1629). As previously reported by the Herald, the APOA’s attorney, Mike Rains, said the lawsuit is to obtain then-Mayor Lamar Thorpe’s phone records because the City won’t provide them, claiming they couldn’t find any. The Public Records Act request covers the nine days prior to Thorpe’s Wednesday, March 30, 2023, press conference when he spoke about the investigation into the racist text scandal among Antioch officers.

22) Christopher Martinez v. City of Antioch, Antioch Police Department, et al., Contra Costa County Superior Court, (Case No. C24-03123). Civil – Labor and Employment lawsuit.

23) Annette Bullock, et al. v. City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Superior Court (Case No. C19-01331). Lawsuit by 17 retired City employees over medical after retirement health benefits.

24) California Resources Production Corporation v. City of Antioch, Before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, (A.23-07-008, MSN21-2354). – Regarding the previous council’s shutdown of the natural gas pipeline. (See related articles, here and here)

25) Devon Wenger v. Antioch Police Department, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00578). – By former Antioch Police Officer convicted, sentenced to 7.5 years in prison for conspiring to violate civil rights, distribute steroids, and obstructing justice. Wenger claims he was framed and retaliated against as a whistleblower. (See related articles here and here)

26) Brittany Hopper v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00988).

27) Donna Miles v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00148).

28) Lakeview Loan Servicing, LLC v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00916, C25-02768) According to Law.com, this is a real property judicial foreclosure action. Defendants also include Does 1 through 20 (undisclosed), the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Testate and Intestate Successors of Darrell Oliver, Deceased, and all persons claiming by, through or under such decedent.

29) Royal Pacific Funding Corporation v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (C25-01851).

30) Linda Price v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No.C25-01700).

31) Gary Dartez & Tamisha Latimore v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N25-1849) Rent Program. Filed Sept. 17, 2025, the defendants include Redwood Property Investors III, LLC.

32) Lucia B. Albers & Elizabeth Ann Iannaccone v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0037). A civil action by developer of the Albers Ranch 294-home project in the Sand Creek Area. Although approved by the City Council in January 2025, Albers claims discrimination and she’s being overcharged fees that make her project financially unviable. Plaintiffs are seeking a writ of mandate and declaratory relief against the City of Antioch.

33) Katie Harrison v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-03507).

34) Karl Brownlee v. City of Antioch and California Community Housing Agency, Superior Court of the State of California, Limited Civil Jurisdiction, Contra Costa County, (Case No. N26-0212) Rent Program.

35) Wintrust Mortgage, a Division of Barrington Bank & Trust Company, N.A. v. City of Antioch, et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C26-00295).

36) Shimmick Construction Co., et al, v. City of Antioch, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division, (Case No. 3:25-cv-05618 & 25CV109652 [Superior Court of  Alameda]). For Unlimited Breach of Contract/Warranty by the General Contractor for non-payment for work on the City’s Brackish Water Desalination Plant in which they are seeking damages of $30 million plus interest. (See related article)

37) Dason Melius v. J. Yega, City of Antioch Police Officer, et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 25-cv-06956-CRB). Filed on May 5, 2026, by a a pretrial detainee at Contra Costa County’s West County Detention Facility (WCDF). According to court documents, “Plaintiff alleges that on September 22, 2023, he was arrested by several City of Antioch Police Department officers who used excessive force against him. He specifically alleges that officers J. Yega and Joseph Chandler ‘lift and throw [plaintiff] to the ground face down, with handcuffs.’ FAC (ECF No. 12) at 5. Then officers Chandler and B. Lassas ‘bounced on plaintiff’s legs while they were bent backwards,’ and officers Lassas and Aguilar ‘appl[ied] pressure or force to plaintiff’s back, pushing air out, stopping his ability to breathe.’ Id. Plaintiff further alleges a series of purported violations in connection with the conditions of his subsequent confinement at MDF (Martinez Detention Facility) and WCDF in 2024. Among other things, he alleges that various correctional staff at MDF and WCDF were deliberately indifferent to his health and safety needs and interfered with his right of access to the courts.”

38) Jami Bruno, the Estate of Gabriel Gaspar v. Contra Costa County et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-00820-EGW). A Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants include the City of Antioch, Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Contra Costa County Fire Rescue Services. According to court documents, “The incident occurred on March 20, 2024, at the intersection of W. Fourth St. and L Street in Antioch.”

The lawsuit alleges, “Gabriel Gaspar was involved in a motorcycle-vehicle collision outside the Antioch Police Station. Antioch Police Department personnel arrived first and began resuscitation efforts, successfully reviving Gaspar two to three times. Contra Costa County Fire Emergency Services and Fire Rescue personnel arrived and took over medical care. However, they negligently ordered Antioch Police personnel to stop CPR and failed to continue life-saving resuscitation efforts. Defendants breached their duty by ceasing resuscitation efforts prematurely, in direct violation of established protocols. Defendants failed to act with reasonable care when they stopped resuscitation efforts.”

39) Christian Gutierrez et al. v. City of Antioch et al., United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. 3:24-cv-01697-JSC). Civil rights violation complaint against Gonzalez Adrian, Antioch Police Department, City of Antioch, Stenger James, Vincent James, Harger Matt, Thomas Steve, Doo Will. Filed by Rosalba Zendejas, Christian Gutierrez, Giovanni Gutierrez.

40) Javier Elias Aguilar v. Anthony Valdez, Jr. et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C23-00410). According to Unicourt.com, on 02/24/2023 Aguilar filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include Officer Ryan Duff and City of Antioch.

41) Jasmine Morris-Hughes v. Alameda Contra Costa Transit District et al., Superior Court of the State of California, Contra Costa County, (Case No. C25-01756). According to UniCourt.com, on 06/20/2025 Morris-Hughes filed a Personal Injury and Torts – Motor Vehicle lawsuit. Defendants also include the City Of Antioch, County of Contra Costa and Does 1 to 50, inclusive. Court documents claim, Bus Driver Toby Sanders  “negligently, carelessly, recklessly, willfully, wantonly, and tortiously operated a motor vehicle in the defective mechanical condition of a motor vehicle…in such a manner so as to cause the motor vehicle to begin the chain of events which ended up with Plaintiff MORRIS-HUGHES was thrown to the right after an unsafe left turn, causing her physical, bodily, mental, and emotional injury. Plaintiff was injured in her health, strength, and activities, and sustained injury to her body and shock and injury to her nerves and nervous system, all of which have caused and continue to cause her great mental, physical, and emotional pain…”

The meeting will begin and end inside the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 200 H Street in historic, downtown Rivertown. The City Attorney will report out of Closed Session any action taken by the Council.

Deal with possible lawsuit by city employee during special meeting before another budget study session

Staff does not provide baseline budget to council as requested but shows annual deficits for this, next two years

By Allen D. Payton

CORRECTION: This reporter and members of the community misinterpreted the intent of the agenda items for today’s City Council Closed Session meeting. Because nothing was agendized to discipline or release a city employee, it was not possible for the Council to discuss terminating City Manager Scott.

During a special afternoon Closed Session meeting today, Tuesday, May 5, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss City Manager Bessie Scott’s performance evaluation, then deal with a potential lawsuit from an unnamed city employee and appoint an interim city manager. That means Scott could be placed on paid leave. That meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. It will be followed by another budget session at 5:30 p.m.

Scott started in October 2024 and just completed 19 months in her position out of her two-year contract. As previously reported, she was hired on a split, 3-2 City Council vote in August 2024. 

The fact that City staff did not provide “a baseline budget that represents only the required minimum municipal services that the City has to provide” for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year, as requested by the mayor, according to the staff report for the Budget Study Session, that may be one of the reasons for the Council’s actions.

The Closed Session agenda reads as follows:

1) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CITY MANAGER.

This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957(b)(1).

2) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- SIGNIFICANT EXPOSURE TO LITIGATION. The city is in receipt of facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff and that pertain to potential employment-related claims by the potential plaintiff against the City. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code sections 54956.9(d)(2) and 54956.9(e)(2). Number of cases: One.

3) PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT: ACTING CITY MANAGER. This closed session is authorized pursuant to California Government Code section 54957.

The legal matter may be a possible lawsuit by Scott if she is being terminated for cause and the council doesn’t plan to pay her six months of severance included in her contract. But that is mere speculation as the agenda provides no other information to the public.

Mayor Ron Bernal and the four council members were asked why they’re holding a meeting to fire the city manager and hire an acting city manager at 4:00 p.m. when most people can’t attend. They were also asked why now when she only has six more months on her contract.

Only Freitas responded with, “They Mayor is responsible for setting the agenda. And, due to confidentiality I am legally prevented from discussing this matter with you.”

Additional efforts to reach Bernal and efforts to reach Scott were unsuccessful prior to publication time.

See Meeting agenda.

Budget Study Session – Includes Deficits for This, Following Two years

For the special Budget Study Session beginning at 5:30 p.m., City staff did not provided the Council with the requested baseline budget. The staff report for the one agenda item reads, “At the Special Meeting of April 21, 2026, the Mayor requested that staff provide a baseline budget that represents only the required minimum municipal services that the City has to provide; to then afford the City Council to layer upon that budget to address priorities. As stated by the City Manager and Finance Director, with only 9 weeks to go until the City is required to adopt a budget, this is an impossible exercise to complete in such a short time frame to ensure we have time to research legal mandates as well as do a thorough review of departmental expenditures for what ‘qualify’ as the bare minimum and what is considered to be beyond the minimum. Should Council want to pursue this budget process, it is recommended to start this in August for building the Fiscal Year 2027-28 budget and potential mid-year adjustment for Fiscal Year 2026-27.”

Furthermore, the staff report reads, “With the budget as presented this evening, Council will need to determine what the acceptable level of deficit they are willing to proceed with and potentially direct specific cuts to incorporate if the Council is not willing to adopt this budget.”

Included in the proposed budget are the adjustments the Council proposed at their meeting on April 28th which amount to almost $2.4 million in cuts, plus, the $5 million transfer from the Budget Stabilization Fund.

Even with those cuts and an annual transfer of $5 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund, the General Fund Budget Summary shows an ending deficit for this year of $4.7 million, proposed for the 2026-27 Fiscal Year of $6.5 million and projected for the 2027-27 Fiscal Year of $13.4 million.

See Budget Study Session agenda.

Meeting Details

The Closed Session will begin and the Budget Study Session will be held in the Council Chambers at City Hall located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. They can also be viewed via livestream on the City’s website, on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or AT&T U-verse Channel 99 and a recording posted later on the City’s YouTube Channel. The public can speak before the Closed Session to give input prior to the council adjourning to the closed door meeting.

For “emotional, mental, and psychological…injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered” due to 2019 incident

By Allen D. Payton

During a special Closed Session meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss a lawsuit by a former Antioch Unified School District student with a heart disorder who almost drowned in a City pool for “emotional, mental, and psychological…injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered.” The lawsuit was filed against the City, District and Antioch Water Park by “Jayson Robinson, a minor (at the time), by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Philana Stearne.”

According to the lawsuit, after being transported by bus to the water park during a school sponsored activity, Robinson was allowed to go swimming even though Stearne had provided written notice that he could not swim and was not allowed to swim during the excursion. After an unknown amount of time Robinson was found at the bottom of the pool unconscious. He was extracted from the pool and found to be “pulseless and apneic”. Lifeguards performed four rounds of CPR to revive Robinson who was then airlifted and rushed to UCSF Children’s Hospital in Oakland.

According to the lawsuit documents, “From approximately 2012-2020, PLAINTIFF (Robinson) was a student at Jack London Elementary School…Dolores Williams was the principal… On or about May 28, 2018, PLAINTIFF was in the fifth-grade and assigned as a student in Shelly Travers class.

According to the First Amended Complaint for Damages demanding a jury trial filed Nov. 23, 2021, “PLAINTIFF is a fifth-grade student with Wolff-Parkinson White Syndrome and a learning disability. PLAINTIFF is enrolled in special education instruction classes which entail his removal from class 10 times a week for help with academics and to be provided extra educational resources.”

The lawsuit also reads, “On May 28, 2019, PLAINTIFF attended school sponsored activity with his class to Antioch Water Park located at 4701 Lone Tree Way, Antioch, CA 94531. While at the water park, PLAINTIFF was concurrently under the direct supervision of Defendants employed by Defendant ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, and employees of Defendant ANTIOCH WATER PARK. Students were transported via bus from the school to Antioch Water Park. PLAINTIFF’S Guardian Ad Litem, PHILANA STEARNE, provided written notice to Defendants that PLAINTIFF could not swim, and was not to be allowed to swim on the excursion. Defendants ignored the written notice of PLAINTIFF’S Guardian Ad Litem, PHILANA STEARNE, and through failed supervision, PLAINTIFF entered the pool. Due to lack of supervision, PLAINTIFF was found at the bottom of the pool unconscious after an unknown amount of time. PLAINTIFF was extracted from the pool and found to be pulseless and apneic. Lifeguards performed 4 rounds of CPR and PLAINTIFF finally awoke. Robinson was then airlifted and rushed to UCSF Children’s Hospital in Oakland.”

According to the Mayo Clinic, “Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome is a heart condition present at birth. That means it’s a congenital heart defect. People with WPW syndrome have an extra pathway for signals to travel between the heart’s upper and lower chambers. This causes a fast heartbeat. Changes in the heartbeat can make it harder for the heart to work as it should.

“WPW syndrome is fairly rare. Another name for it is preexcitation syndrome.

“The episodes of fast heartbeats seen in Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome usually aren’t life-threatening. But serious heart problems can occur. Rarely, the syndrome may lead to sudden cardiac death in children and young adults.”

The lawsuit documents also read, “On or about November 5, 2019, PLAINTIFF presented to ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, by mailing to ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a written claim for the injuries, disability, losses, and damages suffered and incurred by him by reason of the acts and omissions described” and that Robinson “was harmed and suffered extreme physical, emotional, psychological and economic damages.”

The lawsuit seeks the following relief:

“a. For damages for past and future medical, psychotherapy and related expenses according to proof at the time of trial;

b. For general damages for physical and mental pain and suffering, and severe and extreme emotional distress in a sum to be proven at the time of trial;

c. For damages for future lost wages and a loss of earning capacity according to proof at the time of trial;

d. For damages for past and future education costs according to proof at the time of trial;

e. For attorney’s fees;

f. Any appropriate statutory damages;

g. For prejudgment interest pursuant to statute;

h. For the costs of suit herein; and,

i. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.”

Meeting Details

The Council’s Closed Session meeting begins at 5:30 p.m. inside the Council Chambers located at 200 H Street in Antioch’s historic, downtown Rivertown. It will be followed by the regular meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. The beginning of the Closed Session and entire regular meeting can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

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.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

By Matt J. Malone, PIO, Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa

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.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

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