The Brief

It was one of the higher-profile lawsuits against the city of L.A. over the past year.

Two brothers in their 70s said they suffered serious injuries — including fractured skulls and spines — from a speeding LAPD officer crashing into the side of their car at 55 mph.

An investigator for the police department determined the officer was at fault for driving at an unsafe speed.

The city ultimately settled in the middle of the trial this September for $18 million.

It’s one of the city’s most expensive lawsuit settlements over the past few years, at a time the city has cut services due to a fiscal crisis driven largely by sharply rising legal payouts.

An accusation in the case, however, has gone unreported. Days before settling the case, lawyers for the plaintiffs accused L.A.’s elected city attorney of an ethics breach.

As the case was about to go to trial, City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto called an expert witness for the plaintiffs, “attempted to ingratiate herself with him and asked him to make a contribution to her political campaign,” according to a sworn declaration to the court by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Robert Glassman.

At the time of her Aug. 16 call, the expert witness — a neurosurgeon named Andrew Fox — was on the official witness list for the upcoming trial and had been deposed by the city’s attorneys.

According to a filing by the plaintiffs, Feldstein Soto made the call while the city owed Fox $5,000 to $6,000 in overdue deposition fees for the time the city spent questioning him before trial.

By asking for a campaign donation from a testifying expert, Glassman alleged Feldstein Soto violated a state ethics rule for attorneys, which he wrote “forbids interfering with any party’s orderly access to a witness’ testimony.”

“Through her ex parte communications and political solicitation designed to privately cultivate favor with plaintiffs’ retained expert, she attempted to compromise plaintiffs’ access to Dr. Fox’s accurate and unbiased testimony,” Glassman wrote in his Sept. 5 filing disclosing the call to the court.

“It placed Dr. Fox in an untenable bind, where any given response to her overtures invites pressure and a sense of obligation,” he added.

The city attorney’s conduct, he alleged, was “improper and corrosive to the integrity of this trial.”

Six work days after Grossman’s accusations, Feldstein Soto’s office asked the city council for a closed session discussion where they greenlit settling the case. The $18 million settlement — handled by the city attorney's second-in-command — was finalized before Fox was scheduled to take the witness stand in the trial.

Feldstein Soto did not respond to an interview request through her spokesperson, Karen Richardson.

In an emailed response to questions, Richardson said the settlement “had nothing to do with Dr. Fox” and “was a product of balancing comparative negligence with the amount and payment terms upon which the agreement was reached.”

Her campaign manager, Robb Korinke, told LAist the city attorney had been making a routine fundraising call. He said Feldstein Soto did not know Fox had a role in the case, nor that there were pending requests for her office to pay him fees.

“Hydee had no awareness of his involvement in the case,” Korinke said. “He didn’t disclose that he was involved in this case, nor did he donate.”

How did he end up on the call list?

Feldstein Soto called Fox because he was a donor to other campaigns in the county, Korinke told LAist.

While Fox does not appear in searches of city and county campaign contribution databases, Korinke provided LAist with an image of a fundraiser invite for Nathan Hochman — when he was running for district attorney — that listed Fox and his wife as co-hosts. Fox did not respond to multiple phone messages for comment left with receptionists at his office.

Asked if Feldstein Soto’s campaign checked whether people she was going to ask for donations had pending matters before the city attorney’s office so they could be screened out, Korinke said he couldn’t speak to that because he’s not the fundraiser.

“Obviously, if Hydee recognizes someone she knows, she wouldn’t call them, but I don’t know what additional vetting they may have,” he said. “She has no intention of knowingly contacting anyone that would have such a conflict.”

Retired Judge Jeremy Fogel said the city attorney’s phone call would not be something the State Bar would follow up on for an ethics review if — as her campaign manager said — she did not know Fox was an expert witness in the case, and thus, it sounds like there was no intentional wrongdoing.

But, he said, it raises the question of whether she or her team should be doing conflict checks before asking for campaign money.

“It’s not a bad idea” to run checks before soliciting money, said Fogel, who was on the state and federal bench for more than three decades and now leads the Berkeley Judicial Institute at UC Berkeley’s law school.

“When you have the resources we have now within information, you could probably find it in an electronic database. It might not be an undue burden,” Fogel said.

Nowadays, he said, software exists that helps flag potential conflicts based on comparing lists of names.

“It’s just saying you’ve got a case, here’s the witness list, and if you’re going to solicit money, you should at least run a comparison so that you’re not inadvertently soliciting somebody who's on the other team. It would certainly be a good practice,” Fogel said.

When serving as a mediation judge, Fogel said, he would do a conflict check to make sure he wasn’t handling a case where he knew one of the witnesses.

Past controversies

Brought into office by voters in late 2022, Feldstein Soto runs the largest elected city attorney’s office in the country. More than 500 attorneys work under her.

In addition to serving as the city’s top lawyer — representing the city in lawsuits and giving legal advice to city leaders — the city attorney also is in charge of prosecuting misdemeanor crimes within city boundaries.

Feldstein Soto has been the focus of past controversies.

In 2023, she picked a major campaign donor with a problematic history to lead a major homeless housing provider without noting her campaign money connection.

Months later, Feldstein Soto said the man she put in charge failed to make progress in fixing serious safety problems, failed to hire enough staff and wrongfully told 451 tenants they’d be evicted.

Feldstein Soto ultimately said she made a mistake recommending him and acknowledged not fully vetting his background.

In high-profile proceedings she observed in a homelessness lawsuit, Feldstein Soto allowed the city to incur over $3 million in outside lawyer bills without telling the city council, despite the council authorizing just $900,000 for it. That prompted public frustration from some council members.

In September, a longtime city prosecutor alleged in a sworn declaration that Feldstein Soto unlawfully demanded the dismissal of a case because the defendant was represented by a friend and maximum campaign donor. A spokesperson for Feldstein Soto has said the allegations are untrue.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.