A judge has denied Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman’s request to freeze a historic $4-billion settlement intended to resolve more than 10,000 claims of sexual abuse linked to county-run juvenile halls, foster homes, and a children's shelter. The ruling came Thursday from Superior Court Judge Lawrence Riff, who questioned whether Hochman could override the decision of the county’s elected Board of Supervisors, which approved the settlement in April 2025.
Hochman initiated the criminal investigation last fall after allegations surfaced of widespread fraud in the litigation process. He asserted that as many as four out of five claims could be false, citing “fraud indicators” and claiming access to juvenile custody records not available to others involved in vetting the claims. Hochman warned that the preliminary $600 million disbursement of the settlement funds, scheduled for the coming week, risked benefiting fraudsters unless halted.
Despite these concerns, Judge Riff expressed skepticism over the legal basis for halting the payout, framing the matter as primarily political. He noted the conflict between two sets of elected officials: the district attorney on one side and the five county supervisors on the other, who remain committed to moving forward with the settlement. Riff questioned why Hochman had not directly alerted the county’s Chief Counsel, Dawyn Harrison, about the alleged fraud, a point Hochman confirmed but said was disregarded.
The county’s legal representatives have supported continuing the settlement, emphasizing that enhanced fraud prevention mechanisms would be sufficient to detect and exclude false claims. They have characterized the $4-billion agreement as favorable compared to protracted and potentially bankrupting litigation should the cases proceed to trial. The Board of Supervisors and county officials have maintained neutrality regarding Hochman’s freeze request, prioritizing swift resolution of the claims.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys have pushed back against the district attorney’s assertions, calling them exaggerated and based on unreliable database searches that do not conclusively prove fraud. Brian Perkins, representing multiple victims, described Hochman’s allegations as “a hunch or, at best, a suspicion,” arguing that a lack of records does not necessarily imply deception.
The controversy follows recent changes in state law that extended the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse cases, prompting a surge in claims against the county. Investigative reports uncovered that some plaintiffs might have been recruited or incentivized to participate, leading to further scrutiny of the settlement process. Nevertheless, the county’s largest-ever payment to abuse survivors remains on track, with officials emphasizing the importance of delivering compensation while continuing to monitor for fraudulent activity.