The LA County district attorney's attempt to halt a $4 billion sexual assault settlement amid a widening fraud probe Thursday as a judge questioned whether the county's top prosecutor could overrule the decisions of county politicians that sparked the settlement, the largest in American history.
The ruling boots of the Dist. He said. Nathan Hochman from his brief time in public court as he moves forward with his ongoing criminal investigation into lawyers, doctors and plaintiffs after a flood of sexual assault cases in the county.
“It's not our investigation at all,” Hochman said after Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff's decision. “But it will make it very difficult … to get that money back from the fraudsters. That's what we were trying to prevent today and, unfortunately, the judge didn't agree with us.”
Hochman asked a judge earlier this month to freeze the landmark payments for six months after his office found “indicators of fraud” that suggested 4 out of 5 claims were false. Lawyers involved in the case have repeatedly denied any wrongdoing and maintain that many of the claims are valid.
The first phase of the $4-billion settlement – about $600 million – is expected to be paid to victims next week.
The LA County Board of Supervisors approved a settlement in April 2025 to resolve more than 10,000 claims of sexual abuse from county-run juvenile halls, foster homes and children's shelters. The flood of claims came after the state changed its statute of limitations on child sexual abuse, giving victims a new chance to sue.
Riff asked Hochman on Thursday what the legal grounds were for the judge to suspend payments to the five county administrators who wanted to move forward despite allegations of fraud that first surfaced in October. Riff said the suspension of payments was not a legal battle but a political one.
“We have an elected official, you … and we have five managers who are also elected by the people and put in the right positions, and you don't agree on what happens next,” he told Hochman. “This happens in politics all the time.”
The district attorney began investigating the decision last season after a Times investigation uncovered nine plaintiffs who said they were paid by employers to sue them for sexual harassment, including those who filed claims, which were then withdrawn.
The district attorney's team fought to keep the agreement in place, saying the enhanced fraud prevention would be enough to eliminate false claims. District attorneys have long viewed the $4 billion settlement as a good deal, saying taking the cases to court would be a bad proposition.
The district has steadfastly avoided taking a position on the district attorney's request for a stay of execution, deciding not to fire the deal that officials want to end.
Riff pressed Hochman on Thursday about whether he had brought his claims of rampant fraud to the five executives and their general counsel.
“Why don't you pick up the phone [County Counsel] Dawyn Harrison and says, 'Ms. Harrison, there is widespread fraud going on in this area. You have to stop this thing'?” asked Riff.
Hochman said that he has indeed sent a warning to the region.
“Yet they continue,” said Hochman. “They turned their district attorney's picture up on the wall.”
Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the case say Hochman went far beyond the level of fraud and relied on a database containing erroneous information about who was held in county custody as a juvenile.
“We're here on what I would call a hunch or, at least, suspicion,” said Brian Perkins, an attorney representing many of the victims in the case. “The presence or absence of hits in search data is not the same as fraud.”
The district attorney's office demanded in court filings that prosecutors keep old records of juvenile delinquency proceedings that are not available to the thousands of other people who review claims in the settlement, including many judges and the Federal Court.
“We're probably talking about thousands of fraudulent cases,” he said. “I've never seen you before.”
