The Brief

Former Orange County Supervisor Andrew Do was ordered Monday to pay $878,230.80 in restitution for his involvement in a bribery scheme that saw millions in taxpayer dollars diverted from feeding needy seniors, leading authorities to label him a “Robin Hood in reverse.”

Federal prosecutors had asked the judge to order Do to pay back the roughly $878,000 amount, while Orange County was seeking the return of millions more. Kevin Dunn, an attorney for Orange County, had asked the judge for the higher amount "to restore the full measure of the damage to the county." The judge ultimately sided with prosecutors.

Do did not attend Monday's hearing. His attorney told the court Do was preparing to turn himself in by Friday to begin serving a five-year federal prison term.

Monday’s order brings the total taxpayer money expected to be recovered from the scheme to roughly $6 million. The roughly $878,000 in restitution from Do would be on top of an estimated $5 million in previously forfeited property and bank accounts. Ultimately, it will be up to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi whether the roughly $5 million in forfeited assets will actually go to Orange County or another recipient, authorities said.

By contrast, the restitution ordered today is expected to go directly to Orange County taxpayers. Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley, who remarked “I'm not surprised he didn't show up,” said the money recovered will first be used to reimburse the county for out-of-pocket costs and then the rest will go into the county's General Fund.

Do has a net worth of $1.5 million, according to a June memo from the judge. "He has the ability to pay a fine," Selna wrote in the memo.

What happens next?

O.C. District Attorney Todd Spitzer said Do would be required to pay $250,000 of the total restitution amount within 30 days. He also told LAist that authorities are continuing to pursue the recovery of additional dollars from the scheme.

“We’re not done,” Spitzer said. “This does not prohibit us in any way from collecting restitution with respect to charged and potentially uncharged defendants."

"I have been committed to making the county as whole as possible from day one. That’s always been my goal," Spitzer added. "I didn’t anticipate it would all come from Andrew Do. There obviously are other people who are financial responsible.”

He added. “There’s a chapter that’s now closed. But we still have many more chapters to write.”

Elsewhere, the reaction to the ruling was immediate — and mostly reflected disappointment that the number wasn't higher to better reflect Do's misdeeds.

He admitted in his plea deal that about $8 million was diverted from feeding needy seniors. His plea deal does not cover an additional $3 million he directed to another nonprofit group, Hand to Hand Relief Organization, whose leader is now being prosecuted in connection with the meal money scheme.

What was the reaction to the judge's order?

Foley said she was "disappointed" as the county is still out around $10 million from the schemes.

Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen, who replaced Do on the Board of Supervisors, said "I’m disappointed in the judge’s ruling, however there is a process to obtain $5 million in funds seized from bank accounts and the sales of homes belonging to Andrew Do’s daughter and businesses associated with his scheme. We will work with the U.S. Attorney to obtain these funds to return to the residents he stole from."

Margaret Carrigan, a former employee of the O.C. Health Care Agency, was at the hearing on Monday and said the decision "diminishes my belief in the justice system. This defendant took advantage of poor people in a time of crisis and made decisions that benefited himself and his family, and he knew full well what he was doing, and it's hard for me to see people like that, that we trust and vote into office, that they can do that to their constituents."

Orange County Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento said he was not surprised by the ruling.

"The remainder of the funds, taken from vulnerable seniors during a crisis, needs to be returned. The county should continue to pursue every avenue to recover these funds from all parties involved in the former Supervisor’s scheme," he said in a written statement.

Why the county asked for millions more

Dunn, the county’s attorney, told the judge ahead of the sentencing that Do should have to pay the full $10 million-plus in contracts back to the county because it was foreseeable the money was being diverted from its intended target of feeding the needy.

Dunn said that as a sophisticated person — a former public defender, DA prosecutor, and a then-elected official — Do would have been aware that when he gave county dollars to a group that was then providing bribes to him, “it is then completely foreseeable that they may not be spending the rest of that money in a proper manner.”

He also pointed to Do’s admission in the plea deal that he kept awarding the money “in reckless disregard” for whether they were actually going to meals:

Dunn added that the victims in the case are “actually the hungry residents of Orange County who suffered.”

The judge ultimately did not agree to the county’s request for $10-plus million, instead siding with the federal prosecutors’ request for around $878,000 in restitution — an amount limited to the bribes Do admitted to taking through his daughters.

Where was Andrew Do?

The hearing on Monday was paused before it could get underway. Do was not in attendance, and the judge wanted to know why attorneys for Do hadn't filed a waiver from Do giving up his right to appear, as would be required for such hearings. Do's attorney's said he was preparing to turn himself in for his prison sentence. The judge then called a recess, adding that the hearing was not just a "mere technicality."

After almost an hour, proceedings resumed once the waiver was filed.

Carrigan, the former county employee, said Do's failure to show was disrespectful. " I don't believe that there was any reason that he shouldn't have been here."

Outside of court, Paul Meyer, Andrew Do's attorney, told LAist that the "the court's ruling says it all." He did not comment further.

What's the backstory

Do pleaded guilty last year to a federal bribery charge for accepting kickbacks from the over $10 million in federal COVID relief dollars he directed to a nonprofit, Viet America Society. Federal prosecutors said only around 15% of that money went where it was intended: to feed hungry seniors in need during the pandemic.

The criminal probe was launched in response to an LAist investigation of the money Do awarded the group, and the failure to account for it.

Do has been ordered to turn himself in to serve a five-year federal prison term by Friday.

Following the money

Ahead of Monday’s hearing, county officials filed a request seeking over $10 million in restitution. They based their request on the amounts Do directed to the nonprofit as supervisor.

“The county’s entitlement to restitution ... is not limited to the amount that [Do] personally gained through bribes but should be based on the county’s actual losses that was caused by [Do’s] criminal conduct,” an attorney for the county wrote in the request.

But federal prosecutors asked for a much lower amount — the nearly $900,000 in bribes they say Do received from the nonprofit through an elaborate scheme, which saw the kickbacks channeled through his daughters to cover the trail. And so they asked that restitution be set at $878,230.80 and said that there was not enough evidence to prove fraud beyond the bribes.

Do’s attorneys had their own request — they wanted the federal prosecutor’s amount to closer to $800,000 — discounted by the amount he said his daughter Rhiannon Do earned by working what he estimated to be 40 hours a week for a group connected to the nonprofit while she was in law school.

Supervisor Foley noted one grim upside to the scandal: "I'll be happy when we can kind of close this chapter in the county’s history book, we've learned a lot of lessons from this,” she said, adding “We have a lot more public corruption protections in place than we had prior, so that's a good thing for the taxpayers.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.