Category: Daily News

On July 21, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) updated its recent accomplishments, which included a section on enforcing citizens’ rights in a place of public accommodation. The DOJ noted two such litigations under Title II on its website. The more recent matter was a case that took place in California.

The United States filed a federal complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-04849-SK) United States v. Fathi Abdulrahim Harara, et al. (Jerusalem Coffee House).

The case alleges that the defendants – Fathi Abdulrahim Harara (also known as Abdulrahim “Raheem” Harara) and Native Grounds LLC, doing business as Jerusalem Coffee House – engaged in discriminatory practices against Jewish customers at their Oakland, California, coffee shop.

The suit claims violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, or national origin in places of public accommodation. The DOJ is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, including a court order to stop the alleged discrimination and remedy its effects, but not monetary damages.

The Jerusalem Coffee House, located on Telegraph Avenue in North Oakland’s Temescal neighborhood, opened in September 2023 as a Palestinian-inspired café serving items like coffees, teas, smoothies, and baked goods influenced by Palestinian cuisine (e.g., a “Bebsi” coffee drink and date-tahini latte).

Harara, whose parents were born in Gaza, described it upon opening as a “vibrant cultural hub for Palestinian and Islamic thought” and a space “directly linked in heart and faith to liberation struggles around the world,” welcoming to Palestinians, Oakland residents, and beyond. The café has hosted art exhibits, public discussions, and fundraisers related to Palestinian causes, partnering with groups like Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area and Eyewitness Palestine.

The complaint details a “policy or practice” of denying Jewish individuals full access to the café’s services based on their perceived race and religion. Key incidents cited include a June 2024 Incident Involving Michael Radice, a Jewish resident from Los Angeles scouting a nearby community space for a nonprofit event. He allegedly entered the café wearing a blue baseball cap with the phrase “Am Yisrael Chai” (Hebrew for “the people of Israel live”) and a Star of David emblem.

An employee allegedly confronted him, asking if he was a “Zionist” or “Jew” and accusing him of supporting “genocide” and “killing children” in Gaza. Harara joined, and they followed Radice outside, yelling insults like “Zionist” and “Jew.” Radice was not served and left. The DOJ alleges this was the second interaction; in an earlier visit that month without the hat, Radice encountered the same employee but no issues.

On October 26, 2024 there was an incident Involving Jonathan Hirsch. Hirsch, an Oakland resident, allegedly entered with his five-year-old son wearing a hat featuring a Star of David. Harara allegedly interrogated him about being a “Zionist,” called the hat a “Jewish star” and “violent,” accused him of supporting “genocide,” and ordered them to leave, claiming they were “trespassing” and “causing a disruption.”

Video footage of the confrontation, which went viral, shows Harara telling Hirsch, “Get out of my business… You’re the Zionist. We don’t want you in our coffee shop.” Harara called the police, falsely reporting trespassing; officers arrived but no arrests were made. Hirsch and his son were not served and left. The DOJ notes neither customer expressed political views during the visits.

Additional allegations include – On October 7, 2024 (the one-year anniversary of the Hamas attacks on Israel), the café introduced drinks like “Iced In Tea Fada” (a play on “intifada,” referencing Palestinian uprisings) and “Sweet Sinwar” (referencing Yahya Sinwar, the late Hamas leader who orchestrated the October 7 attacks that killed about 1,200 Israelis).

The DOJ argues these actions demonstrate a pattern of discrimination, denying Jewish patrons “the full and equal enjoyment” of the café. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated, “It is illegal, intolerable, and reprehensible for any American business open to the public to refuse to serve Jewish customers.”

Harara and his attorneys (Glenn Katon and Walter Riley) deny antisemitism, asserting the incidents were provoked by customers staging confrontations to target the pro-Palestinian café amid the Israel-Hamas war. They claim: – No one was actually denied service; interactions were brief and non-violent (e.g., Katon said Harara and Radice “literally shook hands”).

Defense attorneys argue that the Star of David hats represent Zionism (support for Israel), not Judaism, and the café’s actions were political protest against Israel’s actions in Gaza, which Harara calls “genocide.” He has lost relatives in the conflict.

Harara spoke publicly for the first time on July 30, 2025, at a press conference at the café, surrounded by supporters including Jewish groups like the International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network and Jewish Voice for Peace. He described the café as a “treasured Oakland space” for community building, including Jewish patrons, and emphasized solidarity: “Despite the violence my people have endured… my heart remains faithfully tethered to a justice greater than anything the human mind can comprehend.” Supporters packed events in his defense, viewing the case as an attack on Palestinian liberation efforts.

On September 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Treating the DOJ’s allegations as true, the court ruled that the complaint sufficiently states a claim under Title II for a “pattern or practice” of discrimination. The case is proceeding to discovery and further proceedings.

President Donald J. Trump just signed a memorandum aimed at addressing misleading direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug advertisements.

The action aligns with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s long-standing criticism of DTC drug ads, which he argues contribute to overmedicalization and mislead consumers. Kennedy has stated, “Pharmaceutical ads hooked this country on prescription drugs,” emphasizing the need for transparency to break this cycle.

The U.S. and New Zealand are the only countries allowing broad DTC pharmaceutical advertising. Despite widespread violations, the FDA has been increasingly lax and reactive in its enforcement approach over the last few decades. The FDA used to send more than a hundred warning letters each year, and misleading ads were rare. But over time, enforcement waned and the number of warning letters sent to pharmaceutical companies dropped to one in 2023 and zero in 2024.

On the same day as the Presidential memorandum, the FDA announced it is sending approximately 100 cease-and-desist letters and thousands of warning letters to pharmaceutical companies and online pharmacies for deceptive ads.  The FDA said that it will no longer tolerate such deceptive practices. Going forward, the agency will aggressively deploy its available enforcement tools. The FDA is already implementing AI and other tech-enabled tools to proactively surveil and review drug ads.

A 2024 review in the Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research reveals that while 100% of pharmaceutical social media posts highlight drug benefits, only 33% mention potential harms. Moreover, 88% of advertisements for top-selling drugs are posted by individuals and organizations that fail to adhere to the FDA fair balance guidelines.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) defended DTC advertising, citing First Amendment protections and its role in patient awareness, but expressed willingness to engage with the policy changes.

DTC advertising is a multi-billion-dollar industry, with $10.8 billion spent in 2024, including $5.15 billion on TV ads. Stricter regulations could reduce ad revenue for drugmakers and media networks, particularly if longer disclosures make TV ads less feasible.

The action stops short of a full ban on DTC ads, which Kennedy had previously advocated for, likely to avoid legal challenges on First Amendment grounds, as seen in a 2019 court ruling that blocked Trump’s attempt to require price disclosures in TV ads. Past efforts to regulate DTC ads have faced court challenges, and the current action may encounter similar resistance, especially given the Supreme Court’s 2025 ruling overturning the Chevron doctrine, which limits executive regulatory authority.

The memorandum directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to enhance transparency and accuracy in DTC pharmaceutical advertising, particularly by increasing disclosures of drug risks and side effects. It seeks to ensure ads provide a fair balance of benefits and risks, as mandated by existing regulations under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

The action targets both traditional media (e.g., TV) and digital platforms, including social media, where ads often lack proper disclosures. It addresses issues like undisclosed influencer promotions and online pharmacies flouting rules that larger pharmaceutical companies follow.

The administration is also closing a 1997 FDA “adequate provision” loophole, which allowed companies to provide abbreviated side effect information in ads by directing consumers to external sources (e.g., websites). This change may require longer, more detailed disclosures, potentially impacting ad formats.

In May 2019, Dr. Duke Ahn, a licensed physician, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor violation of Business and Professions Code section 650 for receiving compensation for patient referrals.

He was placed on three years’ probation, paid $80,114 in restitution and $8,000 to a victim witness fund, and successfully moved for dismissal of the case in August 2020 under Penal Code section 1385, before completing probation.

In August 2022, the Division of Industrial Relations (DIR) suspended Ahn from the workers’ compensation system under Labor Code section 139.21, which mandates suspension for physicians convicted of certain crimes, including fraud related to the workers’ compensation system or patient care.

Ahn challenged the suspension in an administrative hearing, arguing that the dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 nullified his conviction, rendering Labor Code section 139.21 inapplicable. The administrative law judge (ALJ) upheld the suspension, noting that the dismissal did not erase the guilty plea or its factual basis.

Ahn filed a petition for writ of mandate in superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, which was denied on December 6, 2023. The court found that Ahn’s guilty plea constituted a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C), and the dismissal did not exempt him from suspension. Ahn appealed, arguing that the Penal Code section 1385 dismissal meant he was not “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the unpublished case of Ahn v. Parisotto – B337936 (September 2025). The Court of Appeal affirmed the suspension, finding it supported by the plain language of Labor Code section 139.21.

The legal issue was whether a dismissal under Penal Code section 1385 negates a guilty plea for the purposes of suspension under Labor Code section 139.21, which defines “convicted” to include a guilty plea accepted by a court.

The Court of Appeal conducted a de novo review, as the issue was purely legal with no disputed facts. Labor Code section 139.21, subdivision (a)(4)(C) explicitly defines “convicted” as including a guilty plea accepted by a court, with no exceptions for subsequent dismissals. The court emphasized that the statute’s plain language does not allow for inserting exceptions not provided by the Legislature.

The court distinguished cases like People v. Barro (2001) and People v. Chavez (2016, 2018), which dealt with criminal sentencing or post-probation dismissal procedures, as inapplicable to the administrative context of Labor Code section 139.21.

The court noted that Labor Code section 139.21, enacted in 2016 and amended in 2018, is a specific, later-enacted statute compared to the general Penal Code section 1385 (enacted 1872). If there were a conflict, the more specific and recent statute would control.

The court concluded that Ahn’s guilty plea, accepted by the court, met the definition of “convicted” under Labor Code section 139.21, and the subsequent dismissal did not negate this. Thus, the DIR’s suspension was legally supported.

Key Takeaway: A guilty plea, once accepted by a court, constitutes a “conviction” under Labor Code section 139.21 for the purpose of suspending a physician from the workers’ compensation system, regardless of a subsequent dismissal under Penal Code section 1385.

Plaintiffs Joseph Davis and Shavonda Early brought a class action lawsuit against defendant CSAA Insurance Exchange (CSAA), an automobile insurance company, claiming that automobile insurance rates became excessive during the COVID-19 pandemic when there was less driving and fewer traffic accidents. Plaintiffs alleged that, in 2020 and 2021, CSAA was the fifth largest automobile insurance company in the state and insured over one million California drivers.

The complaint alleged two causes of action under California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) (UCL) and a cause of action for unjust enrichment. The complaint alleged that, by not unilaterally refunding premiums, CSAA violated Insurance Code § 1861.05, subdivision (a) (section 1861.05(a)).2 This section, titled “Approval of Insurance Rates,” provides that “[n]o rate shall be approved or remain in effect which is excessive, inadequate, unfairly discriminatory or otherwise in violation of this chapter.”

CSAA filed a demurrer, which the trial court sustained with leave to amend. The court interpreted section 1861.05(a)’s language that no excessive rate shall “remain in effect” as applying to the insurance commissioner’s system of approving rates, and meant to “ensure that a previously approved rate does not ‘remain in effect’ if the circumstances have changed.” The court found that the statute allowed for prospective rate reductions when rates become excessive, but not retroactive modifications of previously approved rates.

In their first amended and consolidated complaint, plaintiffs reasserted the UCL claims, and reiterated that CSAA received an “unprecedented windfall” from the COVID-19 pandemic by continuing to charge preapproved rates as driving and traffic accidents decreased dramatically. At the same time, plaintiffs acknowledged that some refunds were given. They recognized that, in April 2020, the insurance commissioner issued a bulletin directing insurers to “make an initial premium” refund for the prior two months. Although CSAA gave a 20 percent refund to policyholders, plaintiffs alleged that this amount was inadequate and the approved rates for this period remained excessive. Plaintiffs also recognized that the commissioner sent additional bulletins extending the directive for refunds. Although CSAA subsequently gave a 10 percent refund for May and June 2020, plaintiffs alleged that the rates were still excessive. According to plaintiffs, in 2021 the commissioner described the premium returns by California insurance companies as “insufficient.”

Plaintiffs asserted that CSAA’s failure to provide sufficient refunds violated section 1861.05(a) and was unfair and unlawful. They sought restitution for the “unearned premiums acquired from [named plaintiffs] and the Class along with CSAA’s investment returns on those unearned premiums.” CSAA again demurred, and this time the trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend.

The Court of Appeal affirmed in the published case of Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exchange – A169729 (September 2025).

The central question in this appeal is whether Insurance Code § 1861.05(a) imposes an independent obligation on insurers to refund premiums that were collected under approved rates when those rates later become purportedly excessive.

Section 1861.05(a) was enacted through the passage of Proposition 103 in 1988. Its stated purpose was “to protect consumers from arbitrary insurance rates and practices, to encourage a competitive insurance marketplace, to provide for an accountable Insurance Commissioner, and to ensure that insurance is fair, available, and affordable for all Californians.” Proposition 103 was one of five competing insurance initiatives on the ballot, but the only one that passed.

Proposition 103 required automobile insurance rates to be determined by applying three factors – the insured’s driving safety record, the annual number of miles driven, and the years of driving experience – and it allowed the insurance commissioner to adopt additional factors. It prohibited rates that were “unfairly discriminatory” and specified that the business of insurance was subject to California’s unfair business practice laws. Proposition 103 also designated the insurance commissioner to be an elected official, no longer appointed by the governor.

In arguing that the section imposes an independent obligation on insurers to issue refunds when approved rates become excessive, plaintiffs focus on the language in the first sentence that no “excessive” rate shall “remain in effect.”

Plaintiffs contend that the term “approved” and the phrase “remain in effect” in section 1861.05(a) are two distinct directives, and the latter phrase would be surplusage if the statute were interpreted to impose no obligation on insurers to unilaterally refund previously approved rates when circumstances render them excessive.

After reviewing the parties arguments, and citations supporting these arguments, the Court of Appeal wrote that “we conclude that section 1861.05(a) does not impose an independent obligation on insurers to retroactively refund premiums, based on rates that were approved by the insurance commissioner, when those rates later become purportedly excessive.”

The judgment of the trial court was affirmed.

A man pleaded guilty in a federal court in Los Angeles to leading a long-running scheme in which dozens of medical doctors’ personal information was stolen and then used to create fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, which his accomplices then used to issue thousands of fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances.

Benjamin Jamal Washington, 25, of Hyattsville, Maryland, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, and one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances. Washington remains in federal custody.

According to his plea agreement, from September 2020 to May 2023, Washington and his co-conspirators obtained personal identifying information (PII) belonging to dozens of doctors, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, National Provider Identification number, and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Registration Numbers.

After obtaining this information, the co-conspirators impersonated the victims by obtaining fake drivers’ licenses in their names. They also paid corrupt telephone company employees to perform illegal subscriber identity module (SIM) swaps – fraudulently inducing a phone carrier to reassign a cell phone number from the legitimate subscriber to a phone controlled by the co-conspirators – to gain access to the physicians’ phone numbers.

Washington and his co-conspirators then used the fraudulent drivers’ licenses and the stolen phone numbers to open fraudulent e-prescribing accounts in the physicians’ names. At least one co-conspirator spoke with a pharmacy technician to understand the patterns and practices of physicians submitting e-prescriptions so Washington and his co-conspirators could avoid detection and issue more fraudulent prescriptions.

Once the co-conspirators opened the fraudulent e-prescribing accounts, Washington and others used the accounts to submit at least 5,600 fraudulent prescriptions of controlled substances, including illegal prescriptions of oxycodone and promethazine with codeine.

The co-conspirators then traveled to pharmacies across the United States, including pharmacies within the Los Angeles and Orange county area, to pick up the illegally prescribed controlled substances, which they sold for a significant profit.

Washington has a criminal history in Maryland, including arrests for robbery-related probation violations in 2022 and 2024, as well as an escape from pre-trial release in St. Mary’s County in September 2022 after tampering with his GPS monitor.

United States District Judge Wesley L. Hsu scheduled a January 13, 2026, sentencing hearing, at which time Washington will face a statutory maximum sentence of 42 years in federal prison, including a mandatory two-year consecutive prison sentence for the aggravated identity theft count.