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

Will also deal with legal matters including the ongoing civil rights class action lawsuit, potential lawsuit with “significant exposure” and two cases; Measure W spending & Economic Development reports

By Allen D. Payton

During a Special Meeting before their regular meeting on Tuesday, March 24, 2026, the Antioch City Council will discuss development of the 2026-27 Fiscal Year budget with a potential $13.5 to $14.1 million deficit. During their regular meeting the council members will also discuss approving an AI assistant for police dispatch, and receive reports on both Measure W spending, which has decreased the amount for police down to 65.4%, and economic development.

Closed Session, Lawsuits & Property Negotiations

But first, at 4:00 p.m., the Council will hold a Closed Session during which they will discuss the ongoing Trent Allen, et al. v. City of Antioch, et al., civil rights class action lawsuit that’s not yet completely settled. (See related articles here and here) They will also discuss a potential lawsuit described as, Significant Exposure to Litigation. The description for that agenda item reads, “The City is in receipt of information concerning facts and circumstances that might result in litigation against the City which are known to a potential plaintiff and that pertain to potential claims by the potential plaintiff against the City. Two cases.”

Finally, the Closed Session agenda item 3, the Council will enter into Real Property Negotiations with Lone Tree Golf & Event Center Manager Ron Parish for two properties, 4800 Golf Course Road and West 1st Street. The City owns both the Lynn House and the old Mayor Hard House on that street. UPDATE: Mayor Pro Tem Don Freitas and City PIO Jaden Baird later explained that including West 1st Street was a mistake and the negotiations are only about the golf and event center.

Budget Study Session

At 5:00 p.m., the Council will hold Special Meeting/Study Session on the 2026-27 Fiscal Year Budget Development. The City is facing a double-digit deficit of $13.5 million to $14.1 million depending if the council approves increasing the number of sworn police officers to 117.

AI Assistant for Police Dispatch

During their regular meeting, under the Consent Calendar Item J., the council will consider approving a Sole Source Agreement with Prepared to provide an AI assistive call taking system for the Police Department Dispatch Center for a two-year term, in an amount not to exceed $248,400 for Years 1 through 2, with an option to extend for three additional years.

According to the city staff report, “The Dispatch Center is currently operating with four Dispatcher vacancies out of 17 allocated positions (13 Dispatchers and 4 Leads), representing an approximately 24% vacancy rate.  Call demand remains consistently high. The Police Dispatch Center handled approximately 72,000 9-1-1 calls in both 2024 and 2025. Non-emergency call activity remained steady as well, at approximately 208,000 calls annually. In addition to phone call volume, the Police Department handled 86,185 calls for service incidents in 2025, including AQCRT (Community Response Team) calls, which require ongoing dispatch coordination beyond the initial intake.”

Assistive call taking technology is intended to support Dispatchers, not replace them with the following:

• Improve Service for Non-Emergency Callers and Reduce Hold Times
• Support Emergency Calls Through “Co-Pilot” Functionality
• Improve Documentation and Reduce Staff Time Spent on Records Requests
• Expand Language Access and Support DOJ (Department of Justice) MOA (Memorandum of Understanding) Obligations

Measure W Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Annual Report

Under Consent Calendar agenda Item N. the Council will receive the Sales Tax Citizens’ Oversight Committee Fiscal Year 2024-25 Annual Report on Measure W (1% Sales Tax). It will show the amount being spent on police has decreased from 80%, as originally intended, to now, just 65.4%.

Economic Development Update

In addition, according to the City staff report for agenda item 7, the Council receive an update on the City’s Economic Development activities and progress, provide policy direction as appropriate, and offer feedback to staff on priorities and the timing of subsequent updates to the City Council. The matter is part of the Council’s 6-Month Priority list.

Meeting Details

The regular meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. The latter two meetings will be held in the Council Chambers at 200 H Street, or can be viewed via livestream on the City’s website or on Comcast cable TV channel 24 or AT&T U-verse channel 99.

See the complete meeting agenda packet.

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.