Los Angeles County Supervisors Approve $828 Million Settlement for Abuse Claims

Los Angeles County has approved an $828 million settlement with 414 plaintiffs who claim they suffered childhood sexual abuse at the hands of county employees. The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to approve the settlement, adding to an earlier $4 billion agreement reached with approximately 11,000 claimants.

The combined settlements have already triggered significant financial consequences for the county. Many departments are currently operating under 3% budget cuts for the fiscal year, while some county services face reductions as officials work to manage the massive financial obligation.

These claims emerged following the passage of California Assembly Bill 218, which temporarily lifted the statute of limitations on childhood sexual abuse allegations. The cases involved in both settlements include accusations dating back to 1959, primarily targeting workers in the county’s Probation and Children and Family Services departments.

In light of recent allegations regarding potentially fraudulent claims, county officials have implemented a rigorous review process for all plaintiffs included in both settlements. Each individual will be required to provide a “detailed, multi-page written factual summary, under penalty of perjury, of the alleged misconduct and resulting harms.”

“The system created by AB 218 is inherently vulnerable to fraud, but the county established fraud protections from the beginning of the settlement discussions and has now strengthened the review process to further ensure that money goes only to the true victims of abuse,” said Board of Supervisors Chair Kathryn Barger in a statement released after the vote.

The enhanced scrutiny comes after the Board recently directed its attorneys to investigate allegations that some claimants in the $4 billion settlement were paid to file lawsuits against the county. The investigation was prompted by a Los Angeles Times report revealing that some plaintiffs had allegedly been compensated by vendors to sue the county, with at least two cases involving fabricated claims.

According to The Times, all plaintiffs in question were represented by Downtown LA Law Group (DTLA), which had more than 2,700 cases involved in the settlement. The newspaper’s investigation identified seven plaintiffs who claimed “recruiters” for a law firm had paid them to participate in litigation against the county.

DTLA has categorically denied the allegations, stating they never authorized anyone to offer money to potential plaintiffs. “The allegations in this story are extremely concerning and describe conduct that is contrary to our firm’s values,” the firm told The Times. “While we do not believe they are accurate, we are taking them seriously.” The firm has reportedly hired an outside company to investigate whether any false claims were submitted.

County officials emphasized that any plaintiff suspected of submitting fraudulent claims will face additional scrutiny. These individuals “will be required to make a substantiated showing before an independent allocator, who may require additional proof of claims.” Those found to have submitted fraudulent claims will be removed from the settlement process and receive no compensation.

County Counsel Dawyn R. Harrison condemned the alleged misconduct by DTLA, calling it “absolutely outrageous” and stating it “must be investigated by the appropriate authorities.”

“Not only does it undermine our justice system, it also deprives legitimate claimants of just compensation,” Harrison said. “While both settlements have protections to ensure that this is not a windfall for fraudulent plaintiffs, legislative protections must be put in place to ensure unscrupulous lawyers don’t get windfalls at the expense of survivors of abuse.”

The settlements represent one of the largest payouts by a government entity for sexual abuse claims in U.S. history, reflecting both the scale of the alleged abuse within county institutions and the financial impact such historical cases can have on current government operations and taxpayers when statutes of limitations are suspended.