• Home
  • About The Herald
  • Local Agencies
  • Daily Email Update
  • Legal Notices
  • Classified Ads

Contra Costa Herald

News Of By and For The People of Contra Costa County, California

  • Arts & Entertainment
  • Business
  • Community
  • Crime
  • Dining
  • Education
  • Faith
  • Health
  • News
  • Politics & Elections
  • Real Estate

CA Supreme Court removes Taxpayer Protection Act from Nov. ballot

June 20, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

“The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative” – California Supreme Court

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory…the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution” – Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability

By Allen D. Payton

In response to a lawsuit by Gov. Gavin Newsom and the state legislature, the California Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled, today, Thursday, June 20, 2024, the measure known as the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act amounts to an illegal constitutional revision and removed it from the November election ballot. However, proponents vowed to continue to explore their legal options and efforts to minimize

According to Ballotpedia, “The initiative would have amended the California Constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes. The initiative would have also required new or increased taxes to be passed by a two-thirds legislative vote in each chamber and approved by a simple majority of voters. It would also have increased the vote requirement for local taxes proposed by local government or citizens to a two-thirds vote of the local electorate. The increased vote requirements for new or higher taxes would have not applied to citizen-initiated state ballot measures. As of 2024, state tax increases require approval by a two-thirds vote in each chamber or a simple majority vote at a statewide election

In addition, a ‘yes’ vote on the measure would have supported “amending the state constitution to define all state and local levies, charges, and fees as taxes and to require new state taxes proposed by the state legislature to be enacted via a two-thirds legislative vote and voter approval and new local taxes to be enacted via a two-thirds vote of the electorate.”

However, according to the Associated Press, “The biggest impact…would have been that the measure threatened to retroactively reverse most tax increases approved since Jan. 1, 2022. Local governments warned they would have lost billions of dollars in revenue that had previously approved by voters. And it would have threatened recent statewide tax increases.”

Proponents

Proponents of the measure, Californians for Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability, self-described as “a bipartisan coalition of homeowners, taxpayers and businesses committed to ensuring California remains affordable for families and accountable to its voters,” led the campaign in support of the initiative.  The campaign explained the initiative, saying, “The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will give voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians. The measure increases accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians.”

Supporters included the California Business Roundtable, California NAIOP Commercial Real Estate Development Association, and the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. The campaign had received $17.8 million in contributions.

According to the NAIOP, the measure would have given “voters the right to vote on all future state taxes and holds politicians accountable for new fees and other increased costs paid by working families and all Californians.” It would have increased “accountability by requiring politicians to spend new or higher tax revenue on its intended purpose. It will provide much-needed relief to families, farmers, and business owners, helping them to combat the growing cost-of-living crisis facing all Californians. The Act doesn’t cut any current state or local government funding. It simply gives voters the right to vote on all future tax increases and stops working families from paying billions more in “hidden taxes” imposed by unelected bureaucrats.  They are currently gathering signatures and will need $70 million in fundraising efforts to pass the ballot measure in November of 2022.”

View materials on the proposed ballot measure.

Supporters Respond, Will Seek Legal Options, Continue Efforts

In response to the court’s ruling, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) campaign issued the following statement from Rob Lapsley, president of the California Business Roundtable, Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (HJTA) and Matthew Hargrove, president and CEO of the California Business Properties Association:

“Today’s ruling is the greatest threat to democracy California has faced in recent memory. Governor Newsom has effectively erased the voice of 1.43 million voters who signed the petition to qualify the Taxpayer Protection Act for the November ballot. Most importantly, the governor has cynically terminated Californians’ rights to engage in direct democracy despite his many claims that he is a defender of individual rights and democracy. Evidently, the governor wants to protect democracy and individual rights in other states, but not for all Californians.

We are disappointed that the California Supreme Court has put politics ahead of the Constitution, disregarding long-standing precedent that they should not intervene in an election before voters decide qualified initiatives.

Direct democracy and our initiative process are now at risk with this decision, showing California is firmly a one-party state where the governor and Legislature can politically influence courts to block ballot measures that threaten their ability to increase spending and raise taxes. Using the courts to block voters’ voices is the latest effort from the Democrats’ supermajority to remove any accountability measures that interfere with their agenda – a failed agenda that continues to drive up the cost of living with little accountability and few results.

This ruling sends a damning message to businesses in California and across the country that it is politically perilous to invest and grow jobs for the future.

In light of this ruling and the state’s large budget deficit, a huge amount of tax increases are on the way that are sure to make California’s cost of living even higher.

We will continue to explore our legal options and fight for the people’s right to hold their government accountable through direct democracy.”

Opponents

The measure was opposed by Governor Newsom, CA Attorney General Rob Bonta, AFSCME California, SEIU California State Council, California Special Districts Association, California State Association of Counties, and League of California Cities. Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Association of Counties (CSAC), said, “This deceptive initiative would undermine the rights of local voters and their elected officials to make decisions on critical local services that residents rely upon. It creates major new tax loopholes at the expense of residents and will weaken our local services and communities.”

Bonta had relabeled the measure’s title to, “Limits Ability of Voters and State and Local Governments to Raise Revenues for Government Services. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.” The summary he required to be included on signature petition sheets read as follows: “For new or increased state taxes currently enacted by two-thirds vote of Legislature, also requires statewide election and majority voter approval. Limits voters’ ability to pass voter-proposed local special taxes by raising vote requirement to two-thirds. Eliminates voters’ ability to advise how to spend revenues from proposed general tax on same ballot as the proposed tax. Expands definition of ‘taxes’ to include certain regulatory fees, broadening application of tax approval requirements. Requires Legislature or local governing body set certain other fees.”

In spite of that, supporters were still able to gather the required signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The signature gathering occurred in 2022.

Court’s Decision

According to information about the case #S281977 entitled LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA v. WEBER (HILTACHK) on the state Supreme Court’s website, it “presented the following issues: (1) Does the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act (TPA) constitute an impermissible attempted revision of the California Constitution by voter initiative? (2) Is this initiative measure subject to invalidation on the ground that, if adopted, it would impair essential government functions?”

The court wrote in its unanimous opinion, “we conclude that the TPA would clearly ‘accomplish such far reaching changes in the nature of our basic governmental plan as to amount to a revision’ of the (state) Constitution. The measure exceeds the scope of the power to amend the Constitution via citizen initiative.”

“It is within the people’s prerogative to make these changes, but they must be undertaken in a manner commensurate with their gravity: through the process for revision set forth in Article XVIII of the Constitution,” the decision continued.

The court concluded by “directing the (CA) Secretary of State to refrain from taking steps to place” the initiative “on the November 5, 2024 election ballot or to include the measure in the voter information guide.”

However, Section 3 of that Article clearly reads, “The electors may amend the Constitution by initiative.” Coupal of the HJTA was asked to explain what the court is referring to and what other approach or process should the proponents have followed. He did not respond prior to publication time.

See Court ruling, here.

For more information about the ballot measure and the coalition that supported it visit www.taxpayerprotection.com.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Filed Under: Government, Legal, News, Politics & Elections, State of California

No arbitrations yet for 10 fired Antioch cops, APOA attorney confident “all will get their jobs back”

June 18, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

6 face possible permanent decertification as peace officers

There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date according to City staff

“Virtually all will get their jobs back.” – APOA & defense attorney Mike Rains. May call mayor, councilwoman to testify.

“…we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.” – APOA VP Sgt. Loren Bledsoe

By Allen D. Payton

A report in the East Bay Times on Monday, June 17, 2024, provided information that’s been sought for months by local media about the number of Antioch Police Officers who have been terminated as a result of both the FBI and text scandal investigations over the past two years. According to the report, 10 officers have been fired and the information was based on “recently obtained emails department commanders sent to city officials.”

In the report he cited three more officers who had quit because they, “knew that harsh discipline was imminent, city documents say.” The Times also reported, “six officers were given unpaid suspensions…one received a written reprimand” and “One officer was cleared of wrongdoing.” That doesn’t include former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault against a man he arrested two years ago.

That information was confirmed by Antioch District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica on Monday which he had just confirmed that with City staff and was given authorization to share it with the media. He said, “10 officers were terminated, three resigned prior to any discipline being implemented, two were demoted, six were suspended and one was cleared of all charges from an independent investigation, not including Matthew Nut.”

The Times’ report claimed, “city officials attempted to fire or discipline several more officers who ultimately won arbitration hearings and got the decisions reversed or reduced, according to multiple officials with firsthand knowledge.”

However, asked about the arbitrations Barbanica said, “I am not aware of any arbitrations that have yet occurred. It doesn’t mean they haven’t.”

Following a call to City staff, in a brief, follow up conversation Barbanica clarified saying firmly, “There have been no arbitrations that have occurred to date.”

Of the 10 officers who were terminated, six also face decertification as peace officers.

APOA Attorney Confident Officers “Will Get Their Jobs Back”

When asked about the 10 terminations, defense attorney Mike Rains, who also represents the Antioch Police Officers Association (APOA), said, “I am confident they will get their jobs back. There were terminations who were charged criminally and those who sent the text messages. We (his law firm) conflicted out of the criminal cases.”

“Nutt wasn’t involved at all in the text case,” he added, referring to former Officer Matthew Nutt who was acquitted by a jury last Thursday of assault for punching and kicking a man who was handcuffs during a traffic stop in 2022. Nutt was fired last June. (See related articles here and here)

“Virtually all will get their jobs back,” Rains stated. “Six cases are pending right now for the texting that were terminated that we represent, that I’m confident they’ll get their jobs back.”

“This is a way overreaction for the text messages on their personal cell phones,” the attorney continued. “The guys who just received them or sent the message back that the City thought was not a condemnation, the City claimed Biased-Based Policing. They threw that out in most of these cases, which is ridiculous. That’s based on officers targeting individuals in the community, that they’re going to get them because of their race and wouldn’t consider targeting people of other races.”

Bias-Based Policing is also known as profiling. According to civilrightspolicing.org, is “Profiling is presuming that someone is involved in criminal activity based on who they are rather than what they have done.”

“The City said, ‘you used a bad word we don’t like, that we think is a racist term and we’re going to fire you for them,’” Rains continued. “Amiri and Rombough had texts that were really offensive. But many of them they were sending they were putting out on chains including 15 people. Some of the officers said they weren’t even reading them.”

As previously reported, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe called for the firing of all the officers investigated for the text scandal in May 2023 and again the following month. In May 2023, District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Waker also called for the immediate firing of “officers involved in the racist texting scandal.”.

Asked if that tcould affect the officers’ efforts to regain their jobs Rains said, “I’ll probably subpoena Thorpe to testify. I may call her, too.”

“The mayor’s comments about the entire department are completely misleading,” he added.

APOA Responds

In response to the information released about the 10 terminated officers, APOA Vice President Sgt. Loren Bledsoe wrote, “We acknowledge the recent developments regarding the disciplinary actions taken against several Antioch officers. As a union, we are committed to upholding the highest standards of professionalism and integrity within our ranks.

It is important to note that the APOA cannot comment on ongoing personnel matters. However, we are pleased to see that the investigation into these incidents has concluded.

Moving forward, our focus will be on rebuilding relationships with the community and restoring public trust. We understand the significance of fostering positive connections between law enforcement and the people we serve. We are dedicated to working collaboratively with community leaders, organizations, and residents to ensure public safety and promote a sense of security for all.

We remain committed to continuous improvement, education, and training within our department. We will strive to create an inclusive and equitable environment that reflects the values and expectations of the diverse Antioch community.”

Information as of Monday, June 17, 2024. Source: POST

6 Face Possible Permanent Decertification

Beyond being terminated from their positions, six former Antioch Police officers face possible decertification. According to the California Commission on Police Officers Standards and Training (POST) police officers can face decertification for Serious Misconduct. That is defined by the Commission as follows:

  1. Dishonesty relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime, or relating to the reporting of, or investigation of misconduct by, a peace officer.
  2. Abuse of power, including, but not limited to, intimidating witnesses, knowingly obtaining a false confession, and knowingly making a false arrest.
  3. Physical abuse, including, but not limited to, the excessive or unreasonable use of force.
  4. Sexual assault as described in subdivision (b) of Penal Code §832.7, and shall extend to acts committed amongst members of any law enforcement agency.
  5. Demonstrating bias on the basis of actual or perceived race, national origin, religion, gender identity or expression, housing status, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, or other protected status in violation of law or department policy or inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to carry out their duties in a fair and unbiased manner.
  6. Acts that violate the law and are sufficiently egregious or repeated as to be inconsistent with a peace officer’s obligation to uphold the law or respect the rights of members of the public.
  7. Participation in a law enforcement gang.
  8. Failure to cooperate with an investigation into potential police misconduct.
  9. Failure to intercede when present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is necessary, as determined by an objectively reasonable officer under the circumstances.

Five Types of Decertification

The commission publishes the names of any peace officer whose certification is suspended or revoked and the basis for the suspension or revocation. There are five types of decertification:

Ineligible – An individual has been disqualified from eligibility to be a peace officer based on a disqualifying event as set forth in Government Code section 1029.

Revoked – The peace officer has been decertified and may not exercise the duties and powers of a peace officer. A revocation is permanent, and the certification shall not be reactivated.

Voluntary Surrender or Surrender – A person who holds a certificate issued by the commission, knowingly and willingly, returns the certificate to the commission, forfeiting all rights and privileges associated with that certificate. A “surrender” has the same effect of a revocation in that it cannot be reactivated.

Immediate Temporary Suspension or Temporary Suspension – The immediate suspension of a peace officer’s certification, pending the outcome of an investigation related to allegations of serious misconduct, pursuant to Penal Code section 13510.8(d). The “temporary suspension” may be issued under the following circumstances:

  • When a peace officer is arrested or indicted for a felony or other crime listed in GC§ 1029,
  • When a peace officer is discharged from a law enforcement agency for serious misconduct, or
  • When a peace officer has separated from employment as a peace officer during a pending investigation into allegations of serious misconduct.

The temporary suspension remains in effect until either a final determination is made by the Commission or the Executive Director withdraws the “temporary suspension” if a withdrawal is deemed to be warranted

Suspension – a disciplinary action of the Commission wherein a peace officer certification has been suspended for a specified period of time, not to exceed three years. A peace officer whose certification has been suspended may not be assigned duties which include the exercise of peace officer powers.

The six officers have all been fired from their positions with the Antioch Police Department but each of their certifications as police officers are currently under Temporary Suspension as of Monday, June 17, 2024. The list is updated weekly on Monday mornings:

Current APD Staffing

Interim Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington reported earlier this month to the Police Oversight Commission the names of all the sworn officers currently on the force, including 17 currently on paid leave. As of yesterday, there are now 76 sworn officers in the department out of 115 in the budget approved by the city council and additional officers will be sworn in next week.

Filed Under: East County, Legal, News, Police

Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies virtual workshop June 14

June 12, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

June is Elder Abuse Awareness Month; June 15th is World Elder Abuse Awareness Day

Deadline to register: June 13 at 8:30 AM

By Susan Kim, Executive Director, Family Justice Center

Did you know…One in ten Americans aged 60 or older experiences some form of elder abuse? Elders who have been abused are 300% more likely to die than their peers.

Emily Milstein , Staff Attorney for Contra Costa Senior Legal Services, will provide training on Elder Abuse Signs and Legal Remedies during a virtual workshop training on Friday, June 14, 2024, from 10:00-11:30 AM.

The Contra Costa Elder Abuse Prevention Project (EAPP) prevents and combats elder abuse through an active community network that raises awareness and coordinates services.

Visit cocoelderjustice.org for more information about EAPP.

To register for the training click, here.

Filed Under: Community, Crime, Education, Families, Legal, Seniors

Scathing State Audit confirms Labor Commissioner’s 47,000 backlogged claims at end of 2022-23

May 29, 2024 By Publisher 2 Comments

Payroll graphic source: CA State Auditor

Senator Glazer’s request leads to findings of workers cheated out of $63.9 million in past wages

Calls it a failure to act on behalf of workers

Report claims inadequate staffing, poor oversight have weakened protections for workers

SACRAMENTO – California Labor Commissioners have stood idly by as a massive backlog in wage theft cases piled up worth $63.9 million in lost wages to workers as its enforcement unit failed to enforce and collect wages in 76 percent of cases in which employers were found to owe wages, according to a report released Wednesday by Grant Parks, the California State Auditor.

The scathing audit came as a result of a March 2023 request through the Joint Legislative Audit Committee by Senator Steve Glazer, D-Contra Costa, and Assemblyman David Alvarez, D-San Diego. It was based on news reports about the lack of wage theft enforcement.

Parks reported his findings to the Governor, President pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the Assembly about the “Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the Labor Commissioner’s Office (LCO).” Lilia García-Brower is the current state Labor Commissioner and was appointed to the position by Governor Newsom in July 2019. Neither her name or photo appears on the website for the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Ironically, according to the agency’s website, “The mission of the LCO is to ensure a just day’s pay in every workplace in the State and to promote economic justice through robust enforcement of labor laws. By combating wage theft, protecting workers from retaliation, and educating the public, we put earned wages into workers’ pockets and help level the playing field for law-abiding employers.”

The audit “reviewed the backlog of wage claims submitted by workers from fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23, and determined that the LCO is not providing timely adjudication of wage claims for workers primarily because of insufficient staffing to process those claims.”

Furthermore, the state Auditor reported, “In addition to its delays in processing wage claims, the LCO has not been successful in collecting judgments from employers. A possible factor contributing to its low collection rate is that the Enforcement Unit does not consistently use all of the methods available to it for collecting payments owed to workers.”

Senator Glazer released this statement on the audit’s findings:

“The California State Auditor’s report makes clear that our State Labor Commissioner is a toothless enforcer of our wage theft laws. This deeply troubling assessment exposes a system that has fundamentally failed the workers it is supposed to protect. According to the auditor, there is a backlog of 47,000 claims registered on June 30, 2023. This is a state embarrassment and a stain on the department that workers depend on for justice.

The report also highlights an alarming increase in the average number of days to resolve claims, which has skyrocketed from 420 days in 2017/18 to an astounding 890 days in 2022/23. This drastic decline in efficiency is not just a statistic; it represents thousands of workers enduring prolonged injustice and financial hardship.

This lack of enforcement emboldens companies to exploit workers, knowing they can likely escape any real consequences, thus perpetuating and increasing further abuse. These findings paint a grim picture of an agency overwhelmed and ineffective, leaving workers vulnerable and without recourse. Immediate and decisive action to restore integrity and effectiveness to the Labor Commissioner’s office is needed. The workers of California deserve nothing less than a robust system that ensures timely and fair resolution of wage theft claims.”

The report can be found here: www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/the-california-labor-commissioners-office/

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Employment, Finances, Government, Jobs & Economic Development, Labor & Unions, Legal, News, State of California

CA Department of Justice clears Antioch Police of criminal charges in 2021 officer-involved shooting

May 24, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Cover of CA DOJ Policy and Practice Recommendations for APD and Figure 1. photograph from Brentwood Police Department drone footage showing Guadalupe Zavala taking aim and shooting at a police drone. Source: CA DOJ

Guadalupe Zavala caused 6-hour stand-off ending in his death while unarmed; son later sued City of Antioch

CA DOJ “commends APD” for manner in which they handled situation

CA Attorney General issues “policy and practices recommendations”

By California Department of Justice

OAKLAND – California Attorney General Rob Bonta, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1506 (AB 1506), today released a report on Guadalupe Zavala’s death from an officer-involved shooting involving the Antioch Police Department in Antioch, California on December 10, 2021. The report is part of the California Department of Justice’s (DOJ) ongoing efforts to provide transparency and accountability in law enforcement practices. The report provides a detailed analysis of the incident and outlines DOJ’s findings. After a thorough investigation, DOJ concluded that criminal charges were not appropriate in this case. However, DOJ recognizes the important lessons to be learned from this incident. As required by AB 1506, the Attorney General has issued specific policy and practice recommendations related to the incident.

Figure 2: Distance between Mr. Zavala’s house and the location where Officer Duggar and Sergeant Chang were when they fired their shots. Figure 6: This image shows that the distance between Officer Rombough and Detective McDonald (both positioned on the Antioch armored vehicle) and were about 103 feet from Mr. Zavala when they fired. Source: CA DOJ

“Loss of life is always a tragedy,” said Attorney General Bonta. “AB 1506 is a critical transparency and accountability tool, and our hope for this report is to provide some understanding and aid in advancing towards a safer California for all. The California Department of Justice remains steadfast in our commitment to working together with all law enforcement partners to ensure an unbiased, transparent, and accountable legal system for every resident of California.”

Figure 11: Bullet holes photographed in residence neighboring Mr. Zavala’s home where neighbors reported shots fired by Mr. Zavala. Figures 11A&B: Bullets holes in neighbor’s vehicles outside Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: CA DOJ

On December 10, 2021, Antioch Police Department responded to multiple calls regarding a man who was barricaded in his home with a rifle after shooting at neighboring homes and vehicles. A standoff lasting more than six hours ensued, during which Mr. Zavala fired multiple rounds from various locations towards law enforcement personnel, vehicles, and nearby residences. De-escalation measures, communications from the crisis negotiations team, and attempts to coerce Mr. Zavala from his residence were unsuccessful. At one point, Mr. Zavala exited his front door carrying what appeared to be a “full AR-15 style rifle.” Two snipers with the Antioch Police Department each fired one round hitting Mr. Zavala, causing him to fall back. However, because Mr. Zavala was wearing body armor, he was able to regain his footing and moved back inside the residence. Later, a fire started in Mr. Zavala’s home, and he ran out and took cover in his backyard. When law enforcement knocked down the fence of Mr. Zavala’s yard with an armored vehicle, Mr. Zavala ran towards the armored vehicle and was fatally shot.

Zavala’s son, Diego Zavala, joined in a 2023 federal lawsuit against the City of Antioch and six Antioch Police officers. (See related articles here, here and here)

Figure 25: Still frame from armored vehicle video of Mr. Zavala getting up halfway after the first round of shots were fired by officers. Figure 4: Mr. Zavala lying prone outside the North side of his home, under a barbecue, with what the helicopter reported to possibly be a handgun in his hands (circled). Figure 9: Cellphone image from Mr. Zavala’s phone from the day of the incident. Source: CA DOJ

Under AB 1506, which requires DOJ to investigate all incidents of officer-involved shootings resulting in the death of an unarmed civilian in the state. DOJ conducted a thorough investigation into this incident and concluded that the evidence does not show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the officers involved did not act in lawful self-defense or defense of others. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support a criminal prosecution of the officers. As such, no further action will be taken in this case.

Figure 19. Assault rifle found in the hallway of a bedroom in Mr. Zavala’s residence. Figure 21. Ballistic vest recovered from the backyard. Figure 23: A box of unfired .40 caliber S&W ammunition found in the safe of the master bedroom of Mr. Zavala’s residence. Source: DOJ

CA DOJ “Commends APD” for How They Handled Situation

In addition, the report shows the California DOJ Police Practices Section conducted a supplemental review of the information and “PPS commends APD for the manner in which they handled this volatile, dangerous situation, coordinating with neighboring agencies, exploring less-lethal options, and rapidly deploying the SWAT and CNT teams to the incident to attempt to achieve a peaceful surrender.”

Source: CA DOJ

CA DOJ Recommendations

As part of its investigation, DOJ has identified several policy recommendations that it believes will help prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future. These recommendations include:

COMMUNICATION

Antioch Police Department should ensure that officers are equipped with effective communications devices that can operate in the hilly areas covered by their department. Antioch Police Department can seek additional coverage or upgrades through their department-issued cell phone or radio carriers or, if that is impracticable or not feasible, examine whether there are other cell phone carriers or radio channels that would work in all areas they serve.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN AGENCIES

Antioch Police Department should ensure that their officers can effectively and efficiently communicate with officers from other agencies in future incidents by setting up regional radio channel systems for interagency communication.

See CA DOJ APD Policy Recommendations from Zavala_AB1506 Report

Emails were sent early Friday afternoon to Acting Antioch Police Chief Brian Addington, Antioch Police Officers Association leaders and their attorney, Mike Rains for comment on the report, as well as City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Addington and Rains with questions regarding the 2023 lawsuit that included Zavala’s son. The efforts were unsuccessful prior to publication time, except for a response by Rains.

Early Friday evening he said, “That was good news from the DOJ. I think the findings were appropriate. The DOJ does a very good job, in my opinion, in these 1506 cases analyzing the facts and clearing the officers of any wrongdoing. I also see the PPS commends the department for de-escalation.”

About the lawsuit Rains said, “I don’t know on the civil side if the lawsuit is settled or not,” as Rains’ firm does not represent former officer Eric Rombough.

“We represented the officers in the 1506 case, including Duggar and Chang, who were the two primary officers who fired their weapons and were part of the DOJ investigation,” he added.

A copy of the complete report can be found here.

Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Attorney General, Crime, DOJ, East County, Legal, News, Police, State of California

Antioch Council settles lawsuit with Angelo Quinto’s family for $7.5 million

May 15, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Angelo Quinto and with an Antioch Police officer during the incident on Dec. 23, 2020. (Herald file photos) The Antioch City Council settled the lawsuit with Quinto’s family for $7.5 million during their meeting on May 14, 2024. Photo by Allen D. Payton

5-0 vote costs City $50,000 including attorney’s fees

Mock trial held, court wouldn’t grant officers qualified immunity which contributed to decision

Officers responded to home in Dec. 2020 where he was strangling his mother

Died in the hospital 3 days later while not in police custody

Coroner’s autopsy determined died of drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest

Independent toxicology report found presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam.

DA reported, “an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea” and “accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck.”

By Allen D. Payton During a Closed Session meeting Tuesday night, May 14, 2024, after receiving information from a representative of the County’s insurance pool the Antioch City Council voted 5-0 to settle the lawsuit by the family of Angelo Quinto who died in December 2020 following an interaction with Antioch Police Officers, while attacking his family during a mental health crisis. The council agreed to settle with the family for $7.5 million. The Closed Session agenda item #1 read, “CONFERENCE INVOLVING JOINT POWERS AGENCY – Municipal Pooling Authority and California Affiliated Risk Management Authority (CARMA). Discussion will concern EXISTING LITIGATION pursuant to California Government Code section 54956.9 MARIA QUINTO-COLLINS, et al., v. CITY OF ANTIOCH, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-06094-AMO; Name of local agency representative on joint powers agency board: Thomas Lloyd Smith, City of Antioch; Appearing on behalf of joint powers board: Linda Cox, Municipal Pooling Authority and Amanda Griffith, ERMA (Employment Risk Management Authority).” The Municipal Pooling Authority (MPA) is the County’s insurance pool and along with ERMA and CARMA determined the maximum amount of a settlement they would approve. Had the council not settled and continued fighting the lawsuit, the three authorities would not have paid for attorney’s fees and any settlement or amount determined by the judge or jury. Instead, it all would have had to be paid from the City’s General Fund, most of which pays for the police department. By settling the lawsuit, the City only has to pay its $50,000 deductible including attorney’s fees. Background On Dec. 23, 2020, Officers responded to the home of Quinto’s parents after dispatch received a call that the young 30-year-old Filipino-American Navy veteran was attacking them. As previously reported, Quinto’s sister placed the call telling police Angelo was strangling their mom, and the mother was not breathing. The sister told police Angelo took drugs. The sister had a hammer in her hands, which her brother had taken from her at one point, but she was able to get it back. Upon arrival, officers found Quinto being actively restrained by his mother on a bedroom floor of the home. Although claims were made by his family that officers restrained Quinto by using a knee to his neck for five minutes, that was proven false, as police claimed they had only placed a knee on his back. According to then-Chief Tammany Brooks, “At one point, during the handcuffing, for a few seconds an officer did have his knee across Angelo’s shoulder blade…taught at police academies for prone handcuffing.” Quinto died in the hospital three days later while not in police custody. (See related articles here and here) During Brooks’ report of the incident he said, “I have been in contact with the Coroner’s Office and the following four points have been jointly approved by multiple pathologists related to their findings thus far:
  1. Although the decedent had injuries consistent with a struggle with his family and law enforcement, none of the injuries appeared to be fatal.
  2. There were no fractures of the skull, torso, or extremities.
  3. A full examination of the neck revealed there was no evidence of strangulation or crushed airway.
  4. They are currently expanding toxicology testing because they were aware of reported past drug use.”
An autopsy was performed on December 28th by the Contra Costa County Coroner’s Office which ruled Quinto succumbed to excited delirium and prescription drugs during the physical altercation with officers. Further, the cause of death was determined to be Excited Delirium Syndrome due to drug intoxication, psychiatric conditions, physical exertion and cardiac arrest. (Excited Delirium being recognized as a valid medical diagnosis or cause of death has since been outlawed in California with the passage of a bill, AB-360, last October. It prohibits coroners, medical examiners, physicians or physician assistants from listing excited delirium on a person’s death certificate or in an autopsy report). On February 18, 2021, Quinto’s family, through their attorney, John Burris, filed a complaint against the Antioch Police Department. Burris had previously complained the officers didn’t have their body cameras turned on, but the council hadn’t yet approved the purchase of police body cams and the department did not implement them until 2021. On Friday, August 20, 2021, Contra Costa County Sheriff-Coroner David Livingston announced that a coroner’s jury reached a finding that Quinto’s death was an accident, not at the hands of another. Then, in September 2022, Contra Costa District Attorney Diana Becton determined, Antioch Police officers engaged with Quinto in a manner that was lawful and objectively reasonable under the circumstances and an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. According to the DA’s Office, “A toxicology report by the Coroner’s Office showed that Quinto had the presence of caffeine, Levetriacetam (a therapeutic for adults and children with epilepsy), and Modafinil – a drug to stimulate wakefulness – in his system. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner-Coroner reviewed the autopsy findings and agreed with its conclusions. “The Quinto family commissioned an independent autopsy, and its findings note the cause of death was restraint asphyxiation. The private autopsy lists petechial hemorrhaging as the basis for such conclusion. An independent toxicology report also found the presence of Fentanyl in Quinto’s blood – in addition to Modafinil and Levetiracetam. “However, of critical importance to the investigation, an internal examination showed no bone fractures or damage to Quinto’s larynx and trachea. While there are conflicting medical opinions as to the cause of death, the accounts of what transpired in the bedroom are consistent among all witnesses in that no police officer applied pressure to Quinto’s neck. “After reviewing the evidence, the method of restraining Angelo Quinto by Antioch Police officers on December 23rd was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. Therefore, when applying the applicable law and the California District Attorney’s Uniform Crime Charging Standards, there is no evidence of a criminal offense committed by the Antioch Police officers involved in restraining Angelo Quinto.” Yet, according to a March 16, 2023, report by the San Francisco Chronicle, “During a deposition, the county contract doctor acknowledged the possibility that Quinto died of asphyxiation from restraint, according to a court filing by attorneys for Quinto’s family.” Councilmembers’ Actions, Comments Prior to Settlement The settlement vote by three of the council members was to be expected as they’ve been sympathetic and apologetic to Quinto’s family. During the council meeting on Oct. 25, 2022, Mayor Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe and Mayor Pro Tem Monica Wilson wore T-shirts with the message, “Justice for Angelo Quinto”, Wilson proposed naming the City’s emergency response team after the young man, which was supported by the entire council, and District 1 Councilwoman Tamisha Torres-Walker said, “I want to say to the Quinto family, you lost your son, that’s how we got here. Your loss has spurred some change, but it didn’t have to happen.” (See related article and the 2:35:42 mark of the council meeting video) In addition, Torres-Walker wore the same shirt at a later time and event. Plus, the mayor has repeatedly, falsely claimed Quinto died while in police custody. But the unanimous vote in favor of an out-of-court settlement was not expected. Barbanica Explains Reason for Settlement About his vote for the settlement, District 2 Councilman Mike Barbanica said, “these are extremely difficult cases. I’ve been very clear in open session that the DA’s office and Coroner’s inquest did not find that he died at the hands of the officers. I let those investigations speak for themselves. There was no criminal wrongdoing by any of the police officers.” “But when the insurance pool is paying for the City’s legal defense, if the council declines a settlement offer presented to them, and decides to continue to fight it, then the City will pay potential attorneys’ fees and any judgement that holds the City responsible,” Barbanica explained. “The City is paying $50,000 which includes attorney’s fees, and the insurance pool is paying up to the balance of $1 million, which is common in any settlement, limiting the exposure to the City’s General Fund.” “Once you get to $1 million, it kicks over to secondary insurance which paid the remaining $6.5 million balance,” he added. “In addition, the court did not grant the officers in the case qualified immunity. If we had continued in this case, we don’t know what it would have meant for the officers,” he stated. “The city attorney also made a very wise decision to hold what is called a mock trial in this case and is done in secrecy.” “That was all done during the course of the lawsuit with an actual jury because he wanted to know any potential outcome. Those were factors that went into the decision-making on the settlement,” Barbanica explained. “This was not a haphazard decision. There was a lot of research, and all of this was done prior to them coming to us with a proposed settlement.” Ogorchock Offers Her Reasons for Settling When reached for comment explaining her reason for supporting the settlement, Ogorchock said, “As with any lawsuit, if they would have found even one percent liability by the City, it could have opened up the General Fund to pay more than what was paid.” Asked if the insurance authorities said why they felt a jury would have been sympathetic to the family instead of the City, Ogorchock would not get into the details from the Closed Session discussion. Asked about who represented the City, Ogorchock said, “the city attorney (Thomas L. Smith) chose the attorney to represent the City in the case.” “We settled the case based on the city attorney’s and the insurance carrier’s advice. If we hadn’t, it would have opened up the City to the liability,” she added, reiterating the information shared by Barbanica. “In litigation cases, MPA will give us their advice and if we even have a small percentage of liability they will recommend a settlement amount. We as council, can choose to either accept or reject MPA’s recommendation. If we reject it, then we as the City take on the full, potential liability costs.” However, later Barbanica said, “The city attorney chose the attorney from a list of attorneys from the pooling authority.” Questions for City Attorney, Acting City Manager, Interim Police Chief The background information shared above, and the following questions were sent Tuesday night to City Attorney Thomas L. Smith, Acting City Manager Kwame Reed and Interim Police Chief Brian Addington: “Who represented the City in court against the lawsuit by Angelo Quinto’s family including the names of the law firm and attorneys? If the case had not yet been presented to a jury, were there any preliminary rulings by a judge in favor of Quinto’s family? Why settle if all the facts were in favor of the Antioch Police officers? What were the determining factors by the Municipal Pooling Authority, CARMA and ERMA which caused them to recommend settlement instead of defending the City and why that amount? Were any of the officers who responded to the Quinto home subjects of either the FBI investigation into ‘crimes of moral turpitude’ or the racist text scandal? If so, was that the reason for the settlement, the fear a jury would side against those officers and in favor of Quinto’s family? What language is included in the settlement? Does it claim culpability by the officers? According to then-Police Chief Tammany Brooks, Quinto was not in custody at the time he died in the hospital on Dec. 26, 2020. Is that correct? If not, when did that information get changed?” They were also asked for copies of both the lawsuit and any and all settlement documents. They did not respond prior to publication time. Please check back later for any updates to this report.

Filed Under: East County, Legal, News, Police

Natural gas ban lifted for new buildings in Contra Costa County

February 28, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Supervisors suspend all-electric requirements following U.S. Court of Appeals ruling

(Martinez, CA) – The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors Tuesday suspended enforcement of its requirement that most new buildings be constructed as all-electric buildings.  The County’s all-electric building requirement, as part of the County’s building code, had prohibited the installation of natural gas infrastructure in most new buildings and required developers to use electricity as the sole source of energy in the building.  With Tuesday’s action, the County’s all-electric building requirement will not be enforced.

Last month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated a City of Berkeley ordinance that prohibited natural gas infrastructure in new buildings. The court held that the federal Energy Policy and Conservation Act precludes cities and counties from adopting building codes that prohibit the installation of gas plumbing in buildings.

Contra Costa County’s all-electric building requirement, like the invalidated City of Berkeley ordinance, prohibits the installation of gas plumbing in new buildings.  The County is therefore suspending this requirement in response to the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

At the same time, the Board of Supervisors remains committed to the goals that prompted it to adopt the all-electric requirement: improving public health and fighting what they believe contributes to climate change. The Board referred the topic of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings to its Sustainability Committee and directed staff to report on alternatives for advancing this objective at the Committee’s next meeting.

“Contra Costa County remains committed to reducing the use of fossil fuels in buildings and continues to support the construction of new buildings using all-electric technologies.  We are eager to identify new and innovative ways to continue to pursue our goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from buildings.” said Board Chair Federal D. Glover, District 5 Supervisor.

The County encourages residents and businesses to continue to install all-electric building systems and appliances. There are many benefits of all-electric construction, some of which include:

  • Cleaner air and better health outcomes from eliminating the emissions associated with burning fossil fuels, particularly indoors.
  • Not having to pay to install gas pipes in new buildings.
  • Taking advantage of financial incentives and rebates for all-electric appliances.
  • Resilience against power outages, particularly when electric technologies are paired with battery storage.
  • Hedging against high electricity costs by being able to schedule electric appliances to operate at times of day when electricity costs are lowest.
  • Preparing for the potential discontinuation of gas appliances in the future that could occur from possible regulatory actions by regional, state, or federal agencies.

There are many good resources on the benefits of all-electric buildings, including:

The County’s sustainability web site has information on state and federal incentives, rebates, and other ways to fund all-electric upgrades.

The Bay Area Regional Energy Network has information on training opportunities, rebates and incentives, and contractors.

MCE, the community choice energy provider for most of Contra Costa County, offers rebates and incentives.

The Switch Is On, sponsored by the Building Decarbonization Coalition, is a collaborative campaign to support all-electric home conversion by providing tools, support, and resources to Californians.

Rewiring America provides information about the benefits of all-electric technologies, and helps generate a personalized plan for individuals, including costs and savings.

PG&E also has resources on all-electric buildings, including rebates, incentives, rate plans, and design guides.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

Filed Under: Business, Construction, Dining, Energy, Growth & Development, Legal, News, Supervisors

Antioch mayor changes name to honor Mexican immigrant foster parents who raised him

January 26, 2024 By Publisher Leave a Comment

Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe (left) with his Mexican family in 2007. Source: Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe

Judge grants petition to change his name to “Lamar A. Hernandez-Thorpe”

Changed name on 2024 campaign committee forms last September

By Allen D. Payton

After Antioch Mayor Lamar Thorpe added Hernandez to his last name on his 2024 re-election campaign committee name last September, it was made official on Monday, January 22, 2024. That day Thorpe was granted his petition by Contra Costa Superior Court Judge Virginia M. George to legally change his name to “Lamar Anthony Hernandez-Thorpe” to honor his Mexican foster parents who raised him.

List of 2024 Hernandez-Thorpe’s campaign finance documents filed last fall. Source: Antioch City Clerk

In 1981, Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe was born in prison to a mother addicted to heroin. At two days old, he was placed in foster care and raised by Mexican immigrants in East Los Angeles. As a result, his first language is Spanish. His parents, Guillermo O. and Teresa Hernandez, gave birth to two biological children and, as foster parents, adopted several others, all sharing their last name, “Hernandez”.

Hernandez-Thorpe hugs his father Guillermo at his 2020 election night party when he won the race for Mayor of Antioch. Source: Lamar Hernandez-Thorpe.

Hernandez-Thorpe’s foster parents fought to adopt him legally but failed as his biological mother retained her parental rights. While he is proud of his African American family and heritage, he is equally proud of his Mexican heritage instilled by his parents, the Hernandez’s.
In March of 2023, Mayor Hernandez-Thorpe announced that he would petition to change his name to “Hernandez-Thorpe”. Two days later, his father, Guillermo Hernandez, passed away from prostate cancer.

Hernandez-Thorpe said the process of changing his name was emotionally difficult.

Filed Under: East County, Legal, News, Politics & Elections

Federal court upholds Glazer’s Truth in Lending law

December 11, 2023 By Publisher 3 Comments

Benefiting 4 million small businesses

SACRAMENTO – A federal district court last week upheld Senator Steve Glazer’s Truth in Lending law in a summary judgment that declined to hear a lawsuit filed by a lender organization that argued the law did not apply to them.

Under legislation that Senator Glazer, D-Contra Costa, authored in 2018 (Senate Bill 1235), California became the first state in the nation to give small business owners the same protections that Truth in Lending laws have given consumer borrowers for more than half a century. The law became permanent this year when Governor Gavin Newsom signed Senator Glazer’s follow-up bill, SB 33.

The lawsuit, brought by online financers called the Small Business Finance Association, sought to invalidate regulations that the California Department of Financial Protection and Innovations (DFPI) adopted to implement Senate Bill 1235, which requires lenders and other finance companies to provide clear and consistent disclosures to small business owners when they offer them financing and when they close a deal.

CORRECTION: The court ruled in favor of the DFPI’s motion for preliminary injunction. The summary judgment (Motion for Summary Judgment) concluded that the disclosures required under the Department’s regulations were lawful under the First Amendment and were not preempted by federal law. 

In his 14-page order, the judge, R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California, dismissed the plaintiffs’ arguments and praised state regulations implementing the law for protecting small business owners.

“The disclosures will help small businesses understand the cost of SBFs (Subscription Based Financing) and OECs (Original Equipment Costs) and do comparison shopping … Small businesses have asked for standardized disclosures that uncloak the true cost of financing and highlight useful information like “APR (Annual Percentage Rate), repayment amount, frequency of payments and prepayment penalties. The Regulations mandate such disclosures, thereby helping small businesses make informed credit decisions.”

DFPI Commissioner Clothilde Hewlett called Judge Klausner’s decision a “significant victory for small business owners and consumer protection in the State of California. SB 1235, and the accompanying DFPI regulations, ensure that more than four million California small businesses have protections like those enjoyed by consumers under the Truth in Lending Act for more than 50 years.

Hewlett continued: “These regulations empower small businesses to make informed credit decisions and better understand the cost of small business financing products, including merchant cash advances. The DFPI is committed to advancing opportunities for small business owners to achieve the California dream by ensuring a fair financial marketplace.”

The law is aimed at providing small business owners stronger footing in the rapidly evolving small business finance market, where fast-moving online lenders were replacing traditional banks in a largely unregulated world of loans and more innovative financing options.

“The federal district court agreed with the premise of my law, and that is that small businesses should be protected from abuses that were trapping them in a spiral of debt as the online lending industry evolved,” Senator Glazer said. “This law offers a modest measure – disclosure — to help level the playing field for small business owners. It is making California a leader in protecting the interests of small business owners as they seek the capital they need to grow.”

Previously, state and federal Truth in Lending laws applied only to consumer finance. Even the owners of the smallest companies were left to fend for themselves on the theory that they were sophisticated merchants who understood the world of finance. Increasingly, however, that is no longer true. Today’s small business owners are often immigrant entrepreneurs struggling to get their enterprises off the ground with little knowledge of the finance industry. Others are young people or early retirees with no background in finance.

Under the law, the financer must disclose the following at the time they offer financing of less than $500,000 to a business owner:

  • Total amount of financing
  • Total cost of financing
  • Term length
  • Frequency and amount of payments
  • Pre-payment policies
  • Annualized rate

Editor’s Note:  The Herald previously reported in this article based on incorrect information in a press release from Glazer’s office, that Judge Klausner had granted a preliminary injunction against Opportunity Financial LLC (OppFi).  That was in error.  Judge Klausner’s summary judgment order contained no such order and no motion against OppFi was before the court.

 

Filed Under: Courts, Legal, Legislation, News

FTC sues to block John Muir Health’s takeover of San Ramon Regional Medical Center

November 17, 2023 By Publisher 1 Comment

Claims proposed deal would threaten competition in I-680 corridor, leading to higher prices and reduced incentive to improve quality of care for patients; John Muir Health assessing options, issues response

The Federal Trade Commission today, Friday, Nov. 17, 2023, sued to block John Muir Health’s proposed $142.5 million deal to acquire sole ownership of San Ramon Regional Medical Center, LLC from current majority owner Tenet Healthcare Corporation, saying the deal will drive up health care costs. (See related article)

The Commission issued an administrative complaint and authorized a lawsuit in federal court alleging the proposed acquisition will eliminate head-to-head competition between John Muir Health (John Muir) and nearby San Ramon Regional Medical Center (San Ramon Medical). John Muir and San Ramon Medical operate in California’s I-680 corridor, which spans Contra Costa and Alameda Counties in the San Francisco Bay Area.

The deal would allow John Muir to demand higher rates at its two hospitals as well as San Ramon Medical for inpatient general acute care services (GAC), which are a broad range of essential medical, surgical, and diagnostic services that require an overnight hospital stay. The elimination of competition between John Muir and San Ramon Medical would also reduce incentives for these hospitals to invest in quality improvements.

“San Ramon Regional Medical Center has played an important role in ensuring Californians in the I-680 corridor have access to quality, affordable care for critical health care services, such as cardiac surgery and childbirth,” said Henry Liu, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition. “John Muir’s acquisition of San Ramon Medical would increase already high health care costs in the area and threaten to stall quality improvements that help advance care for all patients.”

The FTC and the California Attorney General’s office closely cooperated throughout the investigation and will jointly file a complaint in federal district court.

John Muir Health, a non-profit corporation headquartered in Walnut Creek, California, operates two hospitals that provide inpatient GAC services along the I-680 corridor. Dallas-based Tenet operates 61 general acute care hospitals and hundreds of outpatient facilities nationally, including numerous facilities in California.

Currently, Tenet operates San Ramon Medical and holds a 51% interest in the medical center, while John Muir owns a 49% non-operating interest in San Ramon Medical. Under the terms of the proposed deal, John Muir would acquire Tenet’s remaining interest in San Ramon Medical and would become its sole owner and operator.

The complaint alleges that the proposed deal would allow John Muir to control more than 50% of the market for inpatient GAC services sold to commercial insurers and their enrollees in the I-680 corridor, eliminating competition between John Muir and San Ramon Medical to provide better services, high-quality care, and access that benefits patients in this region. Currently, San Ramon Medical is a lower-priced competitor seeking to offer inpatient GAC services in the I-680 corridor to enrollees. John Muir’s hospitals are close competitors to San Ramon Medical in terms of both patient preference and geographic location, according to the complaint. The proposed acquisition would lead to higher insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket costs, or reduced benefits for commercial health insurance enrollees, the complaint alleges.

In addition to filing an administrative complaint, FTC staff will also ask a federal court to issue a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to prevent John Muir from taking control of San Ramon Medical pending the agency’s administrative proceeding.

The Commission vote to issue the administrative complaint and authorize staff to seek a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction was 3-0. The federal court complaint and request for preliminary relief will be filed jointly with the California Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to halt the transaction pending an administrative proceeding. A public version of the complaint will be available and linked to this news release as soon as possible.

John Muir Health Assessing Options Following FTC Challenge of Acquisition

In response John Muir Health spokesman Ben Drew issued the following statement:

Today, John Muir Health (JMH) and Tenet Healthcare learned that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has decided to challenge JMH’s agreement with Tenet to acquire sole ownership of San Ramon Regional Medical Center (SRRMC). JMH has owned a 49% interest in SRRMC since 2013 and, under the proposed agreement, would acquire the remaining 51% interest from Tenet.

 

“We are disappointed by the FTC’s decision, and are discussing our options and next steps, including challenging the decision in court,” said Mike Thomas, president and CEO of John Muir Health. “We believe the proposed acquisition would benefit our community, caregivers and patients, as well as John Muir Health, San Ramon Regional Medical Center, and Pleasanton Diagnostic Imaging.”

For now, SRRMC will continue to operate under the current joint venture structure between JMH and Tenet with Tenet managing the operations of the hospital. Pleasanton Diagnostic Imaging (PDI), which is also part of the proposed agreement, will remain operated by United Surgical Partners International (USPI).

After announcing the agreement in January, JMH and Tenet learned in late March that the FTC intended to conduct a more in-depth review of the transaction. As part of the FTC’s review process, JMH and Tenet submitted a large volume of documents and data, as well as expert testimony on the Bay Area health care market and letters of support from local community leaders and government officials.

By acquiring SRRMC and PDI, JMH would be able to further enhance care for the community by:

  • Integrating SRRMC and PDI onto JMH’s version of Epic, the electronic health record used in the health system’s inpatient and outpatient facilities and by nearly 1,000 physicians and healthcare providers throughout the community.
  • Extending JMH’s quality enhancement and population health programs to SRRMC and the surrounding community.
  • Making investments in facilities and enhanced services at SRRMC to reduce the number of patients leaving the community for their care.

Acquiring SRRMC is consistent with JMH’s history and would further the health system’s mission to improve the health of the communities it serves with quality and compassion. In 1997, John Muir Medical Center and Mt. Diablo Medical Center came together along with the John Muir Physician Network to create John Muir Health to better serve the community.

“We appreciate the patience of John Muir Health, San Ramon Regional Medical Center and Pleasanton Diagnostic Imaging-affiliated employees and physicians throughout this process,” continued Thomas. “Once we determine our course of action, we will communicate with all impacted audiences.”

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The issuance of the administrative complaint marks the beginning of a proceeding in which the allegations will be tried in a formal hearing before an administrative law judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and protect and educate consumers. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers or file an antitrust complaint.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

 

Filed Under: Government, Health, Legal, News

  • « Previous Page
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • …
  • 9
  • Next Page »
Deer-Valley-Chiro-06-22

Copyright © 2026 · · Contra Costa Herald · All Rights Reserved