Judge Denies LA County DA's Request To Stay $4 Billion In Abuse Payments

LOS ANGELES, CA — A judge has sided with the chorus of vocal plaintiff representatives in opposition to District Attorney Nathan Hochman's bid for a stay of more than $4 billion in sexual abuse payouts by denying the prosecutor's request to put the payments on hold until Dec. 31 while Hochman's office investigated fraud allegations.

In 2025, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors agreed to pay a $4 billion settlement of more than 11,000 claims of sexual abuse from victims who were previously in custody at Los Angeles County juvenile halls, foster homes and children's shelters.

Lawyers for the sex abuse victims argued against a blanket freeze in a June 15 hearing before Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Lawrence P. Riff, stressing that many claimants have suffered severe hardships and endured extensive delays. Hochman said he was open to clearing verified hardship cases first. The judge said he wanted more briefing and scheduled another hearing that was held Thursday, when he denied Hochman's request, despite the district attorney's claims the fraudulent submissions may have been as high as 81%.

In court papers, filed with Riff on Monday, the law firm of Peiffer, Wolf, Clark, Kane, Conway & Wise, added its criticism of Hochman's bid to that of several other plaintiffs' law firms.

"These are not active civil cases awaiting trial on contested liability issues," the firm's court papers state. "The county chose to settle. Individual plaintiffs executed individual settlement agreements. The parties adopted a master settlement agreement and allocation protocol. The county agreed to fund the settlement."

The district attorney does not have a direct and immediate interest in the plaintiffs' vested contractual settlement rights or the county's settlement-funding obligations, nor is he a party to the settlement agreements, according to the firm's court papers. Hochman also has no claim to the settlement funds, is not responsible for funding the settlement and does not gain or lose by the direct legal operation of any settlement allocation, the firm's lawyers further state in their pleadings.

Although Hochman said payment may interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation, that does not create a direct interest in settled claims or authorize him to suspend performance of individual contracts, according to the firm's attorneys' pleadings.

But in his court papers, Hochman contended there were "significant allegations of fraud in a very significant majority of these cases" and that therefore putting the payouts on hold until Dec. 31 is warranted. Hochman says he filed the motion "with the interests of the real victims in mind."

"This intervention is critical to safeguarding the rights of the legitimate child abuse survivors, including preserving the integrity of the settlement process," Hochman said previously. "It will also help ensure that individuals who have allegedly filed fraudulent claims are held accountable for exploiting the horrific abuse and trauma experienced by genuine survivors."

Three other plaintiffs' law firms, including McNicholas & McNicholas, stated in their court papers that Hochman's intervention "has added a painful new layer to years of trauma. Many are gravely ill. Others have taken out high- interest loans against their expected recoveries. They are being deprived of the use of their funds to address medical care, counseling and the rising cost of living necessities. And now they watch as a non-party, with no standing in the settlement, publicly brands them potential fraudsters."