Tag: 2025 News

A Marin County resident was sentenced October 20 in Superior Court to 180 days in Marin County Jail and potentially additional prison time after pleading guilty to felony insurance fraud.

The Marin County District Attorney’s Office filed multiple insurance fraud charges against Marilyn Gibson, 46, on February 13, 2025. On July 28, Gibson pled guilty to a felony violation of Penal Code section 550(a)(4), Filing a False Insurance Claim, and admitted several enhancements related to her prior criminal history, which included multiple prior fraud-related convictions.

At the conclusion of the October 20 sentencing hearing, Gibson was remanded into custody to serve 180 days in jail. Judge Kelly Simmons imposed a three-year prison term that is stayed pending Gibson’s successful completion of probation. Gibson is on a two-year grant of supervised probation during which she must pay a penal fine of $1,000, complete 40 hours of community service, and complete a theft awareness class. Should Gibson fail to comply with the terms of her probation, she will be required to serve the three-year prison sentence.

On September 15, 2021, Gibson rear-ended another car, causing significant damage to the hood of her car. The following day, Gibson called an insurance company and obtained a policy without disclosing the accident she had caused.

Eight days later, Gibson submitted a false claim under the recently acquired policy, asserting her car was parked near Carlotta Circle in unincorporated Strawberry when it was struck by another car that fled the scene. That claim was denied due to lack of proper collision coverage, and the policy later was canceled for nonpayment.

Six weeks later, Gibson obtained a second insurance policy with a different insurance carrier effective December 8, 2021. After waiting one month, on January 8, 2022, Gibson submitted a false claim under this second policy, asserting that her recently parked car was struck by another car that fled the scene. Gibson submitted the same photos showing damage to the hood of her car that she had submitted in support of the September 23, 2021, false claim.

An investigator for the second insurance company determined that Gibson had made the same claim to the first insurance company and confronted her in a telephone interview. Gibson denied making the first claim and insisted that she bought the car in September 2021 and had not experienced any accidents whatsoever. The DA’s Office filed charges following a detailed review and analysis of the case.

The DA’s Office would like to remind the public that reporting false information to an auto insurance carrier when making an insurance claim constitutes insurance fraud. A person still can be prosecuted for fraud even if the claim is denied and no money is obtained from the insurance company. Auto insurance fraud is a felony that can result in a maximum punishment of five years in prison and a $50,000 fine.

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a historic $4 billion settlement in April 2025 to resolve over 11,000 claims of sexual abuse occurring in county-run juvenile detention facilities and foster homes, with allegations dating back to 1959.

This settlement, the largest of its kind in U.S. history, aimed to compensate victims without requiring extensive individual vetting or depositions, prioritizing a bulk resolution to avoid potential bankruptcy from prolonged litigation. It was enabled in part by California’s Assembly Bill 218, which extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse claims starting in 2020.

A separate additional settlement was announced in October 2025 for about 400+ more claims (~$828 million) under a law change in 2020 that allowed older claims.

The settlement dwarfs previous sexual abuse payouts, including the nearly $2.5 billion settlement by the Boy Scouts of America to the more than 84,000 people who allege they were sexually abused as children by Boy Scout leaders, as well as the more than $1 billion paid by the University of Southern California to settle lawsuits related to George Tyndall, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing patients at the student health center.

It would also surpass the $880 million that the archdiocese of Los Angeles agreed to pay in 2024 to cover more than 1,300 claims of childhood sexual abuse, as well as the $500 million that Michigan State University agreed to pay in 2018 to the hundreds of alleged victims of sports physician Larry Nassar.

On October 2, 2025, the Los Angeles Times published an investigation revealing allegations of fraud in the settlement process, specifically involving recruiters who allegedly paid vulnerable individuals cash incentives to file lawsuits as plaintiffs. The Times identified seven initial plaintiffs who claimed they received payments ranging from $20 to $200 to sign up, with some admitting they were given “scripts” to fabricate stories of abuse at facilities like Central Juvenile Hall or Los Padrinos Juvenile Hall, despite never experiencing such incidents or even being detained there.

Recruiters reportedly targeted economically disadvantaged people outside county social services offices in areas like South Los Angeles and Long Beach, sometimes under false pretenses such as offering work as “movie extras” or promising referral bonuses of $100 per person signed up. These activities were described as occurring sporadically over the past year, with recruiters paid per signup. Some plaintiffs were allegedly represented by the Downtown L.A. Law Group (DTLA), which handles over 2,700 cases – about a quarter of the total in the settlement – and stands to collect 45% of each client’s payout in fees.

A follow-up Times article on October 16, 2025, detailed two additional plaintiffs who came forward after the initial report, bringing the total to nine, with four now explicitly admitting to inventing their claims based on provided scripts. For example, Austin Beagle and Nevada Barker, recent arrivals from Texas, said they were approached outside a Long Beach office, driven to DTLA’s headquarters, instructed to memorize a detailed abuse narrative from around 2005, and paid $100 each after signing retainers. They were told “the worse it was, the better” for their potential payout, which could range from $100,000 to $3 million under the settlement terms. Such practices could violate California laws against “capping,” where non-attorneys solicit clients for firms, and raise concerns about the integrity of mass tort settlements.

Downtown L.A. Law Group has denied any involvement in or knowledge of payments, recruitment under false pretenses, or encouraging fabricated claims, emphasizing its vetting process and stating it would terminate any associated parties engaging in such behavior. Following the Times’ reporting, DTLA requested dismissals with prejudice for at least two cases and implemented additional screening to remove potentially false claims.

According to The Times, four days after The Times’ investigation was published, DTLA asked for a lawsuit on behalf of Carlshawn Stovall, one of the men who said he fabricated claims, to be dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled. The firm requested a second case spurred by Juan Fajardo, who said he made up a claim using the name of a family member, to be dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 9 after Fajardo says he told lawyers he wanted to drop the lawsuit.

According to The Times October 2nd report, Juan Fajardo said he used to sell phones next to the recruitment activity, and he would watch a man pull up outside the social services office in a Tesla most Fridays and hand the recruiters cash, which they would dole out the following week to potential plaintiffs. The recruiters told him they were paid per person they signed up, he said. “Just make up a story, say you got touched, here’s $50,” Fajardo recalled the recruiters who set up shop next to him saying. “They’ll give it to you and then say, ‘Hey you never know, you might even get a lawsuit.’”

After a few months of watching, Fajardo said, he decided to make up a story, too. He didn’t want to give his real name, so he gave the recruiter the name of a family member and a fake birth date. He said he took $50 and later got a call from a law firm. Ten minutes after the call, he said, he was told his case had been accepted.  DTLA filed the lawsuit under the family’s member name on Aug. 28, 2024. Fajardo said he doesn’t feel right trying to collect the money.

“I said something like, ‘They videotaped us while we’re in the showers, touching us while they pat us down,’” he recounted. “That’s what everyone was saying. I was like, ‘I’ll just use that instead of trying to make up a whole different lie.’”

The LA County Board of Supervisors voted on October 15, 2025, to launch an investigation into the settlement amid these allegations. Separately, on October 17, 2025, the county announced a tentative additional $828 million settlement for about 400 more abuse claims, building on the original accord.

The federal judicial branch of government announced that beginning on Monday, Oct. 20, it will no longer have funding to sustain full, paid operations. Until the ongoing lapse in government funding is resolved, federal courts will maintain limited operations necessary to perform the Judiciary’s constitutional functions.

Federal judges will continue to serve, in accordance with the Constitution, but court staff may only perform certain excepted activities permitted under the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The Anti-Deficiency Act is a key piece of legislation that ensures federal agencies adhere to the financial guidelines set by Congress. It prohibits federal agencies from obligating or expending federal funds in advance or in excess of an appropriation, and from accepting voluntary services. The Act is codified at 31 U.S.C. § 1341 (a) (1) (A) and § 1342, and it is enforced to prevent the incurring of obligations or expenditures that exceed the amounts available in appropriations or funds. Violations of the Act can lead to administrative and penal sanctions, including fines, imprisonment, or both.

Examples of excepted work include activities necessary to perform constitutional functions under Article III, activities necessary for the safety of human life and protection of property, and activities otherwise authorized by federal law. Excepted work will be performed without pay during the funding lapse. Staff members not performing excepted work will be placed on furlough.

Each appellate, district, and bankruptcy court will make operational decisions regarding how its cases and probation and pretrial supervision will be conducted during the funding lapse. Each court and federal defender’s office will determine the staffing resources necessary to support such work.

Anyone with Judiciary business should direct questions to the appropriate clerk of court’s office, probation and pretrial supervision office, or federal defender organization, or consult their websites. Find contact information and websites for federal court units.

Other shutdown information:

– – The Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system will remain in operation for electronic filing of documents. Case information will be available on PACER.
– – Individual courts will determine which cases will continue on schedule, and which may be delayed.
– – The jury program is funded by money not affected by the appropriations lapse and will continue to operate. Jurors should follow instructions from courts and report to courthouses as directed.
– – The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, which maintains this website on behalf of the Judiciary, will not have staffing to answer the AO’s public telephone number. View contact information for the Administrative Office during the funding lapse.

A government-wide shutdown began Oct. 1. The Judiciary was able to continue paid operations through Oct. 17, with limited additional work performed over the weekend of Oct. 18-19, using court fee balances and other funds not dependent on a new appropriation.

On August 1, 2022, Cal/OSHA issued a citation to Uber Technologies Inc., pursuant to Labor Code section 6317, subdivision (a), identifying three alleged regulatory violations during the period April 29, 2022 to August 1, 2022: (1) failure to establish an effective injury and illness prevention program (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 3203, subd. (a)); (2) failure to maintain records (id.,§ 3203, subd. (b)); and (3) failure to establish an effective Covid-19 prevention program for its drivers (id., § 3205, subd. (c)). Uber appealed the citation to the Appeals Board (the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal) and asserted affirmative defenses challenging Cal/OSHA’s jurisdiction on the theory that, under Business and Professions Code section 7451, subdivisions (a)–(d), the drivers working for Uber were independent contractors, not employees.

On March 17, 2023, four Uber drivers, LaShon Hicks, James Jordan, Robert Moreno, and Karen VanDenBerg (collectively, the Uber Drivers), moved for party status in the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal, asserting they were “affected employees.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 354, subd. (b).) Uber objected to the motion on the same ground asserted in its affirmative defenses, i.e., Cal/OSHA did not have jurisdiction to issue the citation because, under Business and Professions Code section 7451, the Uber Drivers were independent contractors, not employees.

The Appeals Board granted the Uber Drivers’ motion to be made parties to the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal. Uber asked the Appeals Board to reconsider that decision, again asserting the Uber Drivers could not be “‘affected employees’” because they were independent contractors, not employees.

The same day it filed its petition for reconsideration, Uber filed a complaint for declaratory relief in Orange County Superior Court against Cal/OSHA, the chief of Cal/OSHA, and the Uber Drivers. The complaint asked the court to “enter a declaratory judgment, declaring that the [Uber Drivers] are independent contractors, and not Uber’s employees, under [section 7451’s] standard,” as well as “a declaratory judgment, declaring that Cal/OSHA is exceeding its jurisdiction in investigating and issuing its citation to Uber.”

Cal/OSHA and the Uber Drivers demurred to Uber’s complaint. The trial court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend on the ground Uber had not exhausted its administrative remedies because the question of the drivers’ employment status – and the related question of Cal/OSHA’s jurisdiction – were still pending in the Uber Cal/OSHA appeal. A judgment of dismissal was entered against Uber, which appealed to the Callifornia Court of Appeal.

The facts regarding Lyft are similar. On August 1, 2022, Cal/OSHA issued a citation to Lyft identifying the same three alleged regulatory violations as those set forth in the Uber citation, for the same three-month period. Plaintiffs’ appeals for all purposes.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court dismissal on the ground that the Plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in the unpublished case of Uber Technologies v. Cal. Dept. of Industrial Relations -G064372 (October 2025).

“Generally, ‘a party must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to the courts. [Citations.] Under this rule, an administrative remedy is exhausted only upon “termination of all available, nonduplicative administrative review procedures.”’ [Citations.] ‘The rule “is not a matter of judicial discretion, but is a fundamental rule of procedure . . . binding upon all courts.”’ [¶] The exhaustion doctrine is primarily grounded on policy concerns related to administrative autonomy and judicial efficiency. [Citation.] The doctrine favors administrative autonomy by allowing an agency to reach a final decision without interference from the courts. [Citation.] Unless circumstances warrant judicial involvement, allowing a court to intervene before an agency has fully resolved the matter would ‘constitute an interference with the jurisdiction of another tribunal.’ [Citation.]

Further, creating an agency with particular expertise to administer a specific legislative scheme would be frustrated if a litigant could bypass the agency in the hope of seeking a different decision in court. [¶] As to judicial efficiency, the doctrine allows an administrative agency to provide relief without requiring resort to costly litigation. [Citation.] Even when an administrative remedy does not resolve all issues or provide complete relief, it still may reduce the scope of litigation. [Citation.] Requiring a party to pursue an available administrative remedy aids judicial review by allowing the agency to draw upon its expertise and develop a factual record for the court’s consideration.” (Plantier v. Ramona Municipal Water Dist. (2019) 7 Cal.5th 372, 382–383.)

In short, as our Supreme Court has underscored, “courts should not interfere with an agency determination until the agency has reached a final decision” and “overworked courts should decline to intervene in an administrative dispute unless absolutely necessary.” (Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 377, 391, italics added, cited with approval in Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1072, 1080 (Coachella).)

“This fundamental principle is fully applicable here.” This undoubtedly is just one of many court battles that will be fought over the Cal/OSHA jurisdiction over Uber/Lyft and potentially other gig economy employees.

In 2022, the California Health Care Quality and Affordability Act (SB 184, Chapter 47, Statutes of 2022) established the Office of Health Care Affordability (OHCA) within the Department of Health Care Access and Information (HCAI). (Health and Safety Code, Division 107, Part 2, Chapter 2.6). Title 22, Division 7, Chapter 11.5, Article 1 of the California Code of Regulations sets forth the regulatory requirements for Material Change Transaction Notices and Cost and Market Impact Reviews.

A lawsuit filed this week in San Francisco County Superior Court by the California Hospital Association (and its membership of about 400 hospitals) alleges that the California Office of Health Care Affordability’s (OHCA) board, what the Association claims is “a group of eight unelected bureaucrats,” has raced to implement health care spending caps while ignoring critical factors, including:

– – The underlying costs of care (labor expenses, advancements in clinical care, pharmaceutical prices, etc.)
– – A rapidly aging population that will require more intensive care
– – National and statewide inflationary pressures
– – State and federal policy changes, such as passage earlier this year of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which will strip tens of billions of dollars from California’s health care system over the next decade

The California Hospital Association asks the court to prohibit OHCA from implementing five actions, effectively requiring the board to revisit:

– – The creation of a 3.5% statewide spending target for 2025, declining to 3% by 2029
– – The adoption of a hospital sector
– – The adoption of a hospital sector spending target equal to the statewide cost target
– – The adoption of criteria for identifying supposed “high-cost outlier” hospitals
– – The adoption of reduced spending targets for the “outlier” hospitals, starting at 1.8% for 2026 and declining to 1.6% by 2029

“Since its inception, OHCA has continually flouted both the letter and spirit of the law that created it,” said Carmela Coyle, President & CEO of the California Hospital Association. “Lawmakers intentionally established a multi-year time frame for OHCA – to ensure its board engaged in a thoughtful, data-driven approach to making health care more affordable without sacrificing access to care, quality of care, health care jobs, and more. Yet, the office’s illegal and breakneck pursuit of cost-cutting – regardless of the impact on patients and workers – has now put vital health care services for all Californians at risk.”

According to the lawsuit, the Legislature’s intent was clear: “OHCA’s work to improve health care affordability must promote, rather than come at the expense of, health care access, equity, and quality, and the stability of the health care workforce.”

Instead, it alleges that OHCA has rushed to establish hospital spending targets while ignoring “voluminous and complex information,” according to the lawsuit. OHCA has “relied on incomplete and at times faulty data” in establishing “improperly-focused, and unattainable cost targets, which neither consider the actual factors that impact hospital costs nor are constructed to actually ensure consumer affordability,” the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges that actions taken to date by OHCA officials are “arbitrary and capricious,” contain repeated violations of state law, and do not ensure that savings from the imposed cost targets “would be passed to consumers in the form of lower premiums and cost sharing, rather than simply being retained by payers as higher profits.” While OHCA has targeted hospitals with “unattainably low” cost targets, health insurance companies are increasing the premiums paid by consumers by 10% or more each year – calling into question the agency’s actual impact on the pocketbooks of working Californians.

“The spending caps set by politically appointed bureaucrats could force cuts that result in many Californians traveling farther for care, facing longer emergency room wait times, experiencing more overcrowding, and losing access to critical services like maternity care, cancer treatment, behavioral health services, and surgical care,” Coyle said. “OHCA has unfairly targeted hospitals without the necessary research and analysis. This has resulted in a handful of unelected individuals who have chosen to cut billions from California’s health care system, endangering access to health care in vulnerable communities across the state.”