Tag: 2025 News

Jose Luis Nazar and Land of the Free own an office building located at 640 S. San Vicente Boulevard (the San Vicente property) and an event space located at 2400 Laurel Canyon Boulevard in Los Angeles (the Laurel Canyon property) L.P.

Sylvia Noland was hired hired to work as their leasing agent and sales representative. She filed a lawsuit in August 2018 asserted 25 causes of action, including violations of California’s wage and hour laws, constructive and wrongful termination and other employment law related claims.

The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no triable issues as to any of those claims. Among other things, the court found the evidence was undisputed that (1) plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus the wage and hour laws did not apply to her, (2) defendants did not owe plaintiff a commission because the tenant plaintiff said she secured ultimately did not execute a lease with defendants, (3) plaintiff had not demonstrated that she was subject to any adverse employment actions that could form the basis for a retaliation action, and (4) plaintiff did not demonstrate triable issues as to her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim.

On July 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from the order granting summary judgment and challenges the grant of summary judgment on several grounds. On appeal she was represented by Mostafavi Law Group and Amir Mostafav located in Los Angeles.

The judgment was affirmed. Attorney Amir Mostafavi was directed to pay $10,000 in sanctions in the published case of Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P. -B331918 (September 2025). Relevant excerpts from the opinion are quoted below.

“Prior to oral argument in this case, on our own motion we issued an order to show cause (OSC) why this court should not sanction plaintiff’s counsel, Amir Mostafavi, for filing appellate briefs replete with fabricated quotes and citations. The OSC noted that nearly all of the quotations in appellant’s opening brief, as well as many in the reply brief, were fabricated, and it warned that sanctions might include both an award of attorney fees and costs to defendants and an award of sanctions payable to the clerk of this court.”

“Attorney Mostafavi filed a written response. He acknowledged that he relied on AI ‘to support citation of legal issues’ and that the fabricated quotes were AI-generated. He further asserted that he had not been aware that generative AI frequently fabricates or hallucinates legal sources and, thus, he did not ‘manually verify [the quotations] against more reliable sources.’ Mostafavi accepted responsibility for the fabrications and said he had since taken measures to educate himself so that he does not repeat such errors in the future.”

“Plaintiff challenges the grant of summary judgment on several grounds, none of which raises any novel questions of law or requires us to apply settled law in a unique factual context. In short, this is in most respects a straightforward appeal that, under normal circumstances, would not warrant publication.”

“What sets this appeal apart – and the reason we have elected to publish this opinion – is that nearly all of the legal quotations in plaintiff’s opening brief, and many of the quotations in plaintiff’s reply brief, are fabricated. That is, the quotes plaintiff attributes to published cases do not appear in those cases or anywhere else. Further, many of the cases plaintiff cites do not discuss the topics for which they are cited, and a few of the cases do not exist at all. These fabricated legal authorities were created by generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools that plaintiff’s counsel used to draft his appellate briefs. The AI tools created fake legal authority – sometimes referred to as AI “hallucinations” – that were undetected by plaintiff’s counsel because he did not read the cases the AI tools cited.”

“Although the generation of fake legal authority by AI sources has been widely commented on by federal and out-of- state courts and reported by many media sources, no California court has addressed this issue. We therefore publish this opinion as a warning. Simply stated, no brief, pleading, motion, or any other paper filed in any court should contain any citations – whether provided by generative AI or any other source – that the attorney responsible for submitting the pleading has not personally read and verified. Because plaintiff’s counsel’s conduct in this case violated a basic duty counsel owed to his client and the court, we impose a monetary sanction on counsel, direct him to serve a copy of this opinion on his client, and direct the clerk of the court to serve a copy of this opinion on the State Bar.”

The Sonoma Index-Tribune reports that California counties, including Sonoma, are struggling under skyrocketing insurance costs. It goes on to report that “Sonoma County has seen its overall liability insurance costs go up more than 500% in the past decade, according to data obtained by The Press Democrat. The county’s spending on that insurance has gone from under $3.8 million for fiscal year 2014-2015 to almost $23.8 million for 2024-2025.”

The Press Democrat primarily focuses on the surge in liability insurance costs for California counties (such as Sonoma County’s 500% increase over the past decade, driven largely by law enforcement-related claims and a shrinking insurance market), it briefly mentions workers’ compensation as one of the core insurance types local governments manage alongside property and liability coverage.

A broader search for recent reports, statements from county officials, and industry analyses indicated that California’s workers’ compensation system is notoriously one of the most expensive in the U.S., and counties-as major public employers with high-risk roles like law enforcement, firefighting, and public works – face significant burdens. The following is a breakdown of the main issues based on recent reports (as of September 2025):

California ranks as the 3rd most expensive state for workers’ compensation insurance, with average rates about 178% higher than the national median. This is due to factors like high medical costs, a litigious environment, and the state’s unique regulatory system (overseen by the Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California, or WCIRB, rather than the national NCCI standard).

In 2025, the California Department of Insurance approved an 8.7% increase in the average advisory pure premium rate – the first meaningful rise in over a decade. Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara alerted state leaders in a letter that these “growing costs” could impact businesses and public entities like counties, signaling a shift in market conditions that might lead to further hikes.

Ben Adler, spokesperson for the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), has echoed sentiments from the Sonoma article by noting that insurance challenges (including workers’ comp) are forcing cuts to services residents rely on, such as law enforcement and wildfire protection. In Sonoma, where the Sheriff’s Office already dominates liability spending ($13.1 million in 2024-2025), workers’ comp adds to the fiscal strain for high-risk deputies and correctional staff.

Napa County officials have reported general insurance costs (including workers’ comp) doubling in five years, with expectations of 20% annual rises. This mirrors Sonoma’s experience and has prompted “tough conversations” about service reductions, as noted by Napa CEO Ryan Alsop.

Public sector roles like policing, firefighting, and jail operations involve inherent risks, leading to frequent claims for injuries (e.g., back strains, assaults, or repetitive stress). Counties complain that these drive up experience modification factors (which adjust premiums based on claim history), making coverage more expensive.

Fraud is a major grievance. The Sonoma County District Attorney’s Office received a $339,173 grant in 2023-2024 from the California Department of Insurance to investigate workers’ comp fraud, including claimant exaggeration, employer premium evasion, and medical provider schemes. Officials like DA Carla Rodriguez emphasize that fraud inflates system-wide costs, affecting honest employers like counties. Statewide, fraud investigations highlight how it increases premiums for everyone, with counties bearing the brunt as self-insured or pooled entities.

Similar to workers’ comp costs liability insurance costs are fueled by increasing jury awards, lengthy claim resolutions (averaging 16 months), and uncapped damages in California. Counties complain about “nuclear verdicts” and extended filing deadlines (e.g., from recent laws like those extending child abuse claim windows, though this hits schools harder).

Medical treatment costs in California are among the highest nationally, with evidence-based care requirements adding to expenses. The state’s no-fault system ensures benefits for most claims, but counties report disputes over benefit delivery, leading to audits and appeals via the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC).

Shared risk pools like PRISM (used by Sonoma and 54 other counties) spread costs but also mean one county’s high claims can raise premiums for all, exacerbating complaints during waves of litigation.

Insurers are pulling back from California due to reinsurance shortages (85% loss, per CSAC) and post-2020 shifts in public perception of high-risk jobs (e.g., after George Floyd). This leads to fewer options and higher premiums, with some counties facing 1000% spikes in related coverages. Workers’ comp follows suit, as noted in Gallagher’s 2025 public sector trends analysis.

Small or rural counties like Lake and Mendocino (neighbors to Sonoma) echo these issues, with officials pushing for reforms like better fraud prosecution and de-escalation training to lower claims.

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.