Contra Costa Herald

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

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

By Leave a Comment

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.

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

By 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.

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

By 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.

Natural gas ban lifted for new buildings in Contra Costa County

By 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.

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

By 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.

Federal court upholds Glazer’s Truth in Lending law

By 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.

 

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

By 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.

 

Serve on the Contra Costa County Public Law Library Board of Trustees

By Leave a Comment

Applications due Oct. 27

The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors is seeking applicants for the Public Law Library Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees was established pursuant to State law and County Ordinance to maintain a law library in Martinez and a branch library in Richmond.

The Board of Trustees is the governing body for the Law Library with the authority to determine personnel, fiscal, and administrative policies to fulfill the legal information needs of the community. County residents who are members of the State Bar and have an interest in public policy and library administration are encouraged to apply for this non-paid volunteer opportunity. The County Board of Supervisors will appoint to fill one vacancy for a one-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2024 and ending on Dec. 31, 2024.   The Board of Trustees meets monthly for a midday meeting, time and date to be decided by the Board.

Application forms can be obtained from the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by calling (925) 655-2000 or the application can be completed online by visiting the County website at  https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/3418.

Applications should be returned to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, County Administration Building, 1025 Escobar St., Martinez, CA  94553 no later than by 5 p.m. on Friday, Oct. 27, 2023.

Applicants should plan to be available for public interviews to be conducted virtually via Zoom on Monday, November 13, 2023.

More information about the Contra Costa Public Law Library can be obtained by calling Carey Rowan at (925) 646-2783 or Carey.Rowan@LL.cccounty.us , or visiting the Law Library website at http://www.cccpllib.org.

 

Permanent injunction imposed against online education company for alleged violations of children’s privacy law

By Leave a Comment

Edmodo, LLC allegedly collected names, email addresses, phone numbers, device information, and IP addresses of approximately 36 million children under 13 for advertising purposes until approximately September 2022 and “retaining this personal information indefinitely”

The Department of Justice, together with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), today announced that Edmodo, LLC (Edmodo) has agreed to a permanent injunction and a $6 million civil penalty in connection with its online educational platform, as part of a settlement to resolve alleged violations of the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Rule (COPPA Rule), and the Federal Trade Commission Act. The civil penalty is suspended due to Edmodo’s inability to pay.

The Edmodo educational platform, sold to schools throughout the United States, enabled teachers to interface with students, including children under 13 years old, to host virtual class spaces, conduct discussions, share materials, make assignments, and provide quizzes and grades, among other things. In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, the government alleges that, until approximately September 2022, Edmodo collected the personal information of children under 13, including their names, email addresses, phone numbers, device information, and IP addresses. Edmodo allegedly collected such information without providing notice to the children’s parents or obtaining parental authorization to collect such personal information, as required by the COPPA Rule, and used this personal information to enable third parties to display targeted advertising to student users between 2018 and September 2022.

According to a May 2023 article by Human Rights Watch, “Edmodo was a website and app widely used by children in kindergarten, elementary, and middle schools across the US until September 2022, when the company pivoted to only selling its product to governments. The company benefited from explosive demand in 2020, reporting a 1,500 percent increase in users in the first five months of the pandemic as governments and schools rushed to connect children to online learning.

An investigation by Human Rights Watch in May 2022 found that Edmodo was designed with the capacity to surveil children and harvest their personal data for advertising. Our technical analysis found that Edmodo could not only invisibly tag children and identify their devices for the sole purpose of advertising to them, but also enabled other advertisers to do the same by embedding ad-specific third-party code on its platform. After multiple requests for comment, Edmodo told Human Rights Watch in July 2022 that it did ‘not share [its students’] personal data with any Edmodo business partners or third parties.’”

The complaint further asserts that Edmodo was retaining this personal information indefinitely. As of March 2020, Edmodo retained the personal information associated with approximately 36 million student accounts, of which only one million were actively using the platform. This indefinite retention violated COPPA’s requirement that an operator not retain personal information of children for longer than “reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which [the information] was collected.”

The stipulated order, entered by the federal district court yesterday, enjoins Edmodo from collecting personal information from children in a manner that violates the COPPA Rule and prohibits Edmodo from retaining children’s personal information for longer than reasonably necessary to fulfill the purpose for which it was collected. The order also enjoins Edmodo from collecting more personal information than reasonably necessary for a child to participate in any activity offered on its service. It also requires Edmodo to destroy personal information improperly collected from children under age 13 and to comply with reporting, monitoring, and recordkeeping requirements. Edmodo is also subject to a civil penalty judgment of $6 million dollars, which is suspended due to Edmodo’s inability to pay.

“Children do not lose their privacy protections when they use the internet,” said U.S. Attorney Ismail J. Ramsey for the Northern District of California. “Congress and the FTC have established rules to govern websites and apps collecting and storing the personal information of children. The settlement being announced today demonstrates the Department of Justice’s resolve to enforce those rules. We will continue to work with our partners at the FTC to safeguard children’s online privacy.”

“The Justice Department takes seriously its mission to protect the online privacy rights of children and their parents. This order spells out clearly to all online providers that it is unacceptable to collect children’s personal information without their parents’ consent,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian M. Boynton, head of the Department of Justice’s Civil Division. “The department is committed to protecting against unauthorized online collection and retention of information, especially from children.”

“This order makes clear that ed tech providers cannot outsource compliance responsibilities to schools, or force students to choose between their privacy and education,” said Director Samuel Levine of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Other ed tech providers should carefully examine their practices to ensure they’re not compromising students’ privacy.”

This matter was handled by Assistant U.S. Attorney Vivian Wang for the Northern District of California, Senior Trial Attorney James T. Nelson and Assistant Director Lisa Hsiao of the Civil Division’s Consumer Protection Branch, and Gorana Neskovic and Peder Magee of the FTC.

For more information about the Consumer Protection Branch and its enforcement efforts, visit its website at www.justice.gov/civil/consumer-protection-branch. For more information about the FTC, visit its website at www.FTC.gov.

Allen D. Payton contributed to this report.

49 state attorneys general file lawsuit against telecom company over billions of illegal robocalls

By Leave a Comment

An estimated 577 million robocalls sent to California phone numbers on National Do Not Call Registry 

Including Social Security, Medicare and employment scams

SACRAMENTO – California Attorney General Rob Bonta today, as part of a bipartisan coalition of 49 attorneys general, announced a lawsuit against Arizona-based Avid Telecom for allegedly initiating and facilitating billions of unlawful robocalls in California and around the country. Those robocalls included Social Security Administration scams, Medicare scams, and employment scams; two robocall examples can be heard here and here. Today’s complaint is the result of efforts by the nationwide Anti-Robocall Litigation Task Force, which Attorney General Bonta helped launch last year and is charged with taking legal action against telecommunications companies that perpetuate robocall traffic.

“As the People’s Attorney, I’ve been laser focused on protecting consumers since taking office, and stopping unwanted robocalls is an important bipartisan and nationwide effort,” said Attorney General Bonta. “In addition to being a daily annoyance, robocalls can and do cause real financial damage. I’m taking Avid Telecom to court for delivering not hundreds, or thousands, or millions of robocalls — but billions of robocalls. Our coalition alleges that Avid Telecom has violated federal and state laws, and we are confident that we will prevail.”

From December 2018 to January 2023, Avid Telecom sent or attempted to transmit over 24.5 billion calls to consumers. More than 90% of those calls lasted under 15 seconds, strongly indicating that they were likely robocalls. Further, Avid Telecom sent or transmitted over 7.5 billion calls to telephone numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, an estimated 577,879,156 of those calls were to telephone numbers in California. Registering for the National Do Not Call Registry allows consumers to legally opt out from receiving telemarketing calls, but robocallers regularly fail to respect such legal prohibitions.

In the multistate coalition’s complaint, among other misconduct, Attorney General Bonta alleges that Avid Telecom:

  • Violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which prohibits any person from making a call using an automatic telephone-dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice to any cellular telephone;
  • Violated the Telemarketing Sales Rule, which prohibits abusive and deceptive acts or practices by “sellers” or “telemarketers”;
  • Violated the Truth in Caller ID Act, which prohibits the transmission of misleading or inaccurate caller-ID information;
  • Violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, which prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts and practices, by transmitting a colossal number of illegal robocalls into California.

In filing today’s complaint, Attorney General Bonta joined the attorneys general of Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia.

A copy of the lawsuit can be found here.