\u201cThis latest instruction now to dismiss an active case fully supported by the evidence showing not just probable cause, but a high likelihood of conviction by a jury at trial is improper and unethical,\u201d wrote Dennis Kong<\/a>, who leads the unit handling price gouging prosecutions, in a Feb. 3 email to colleagues. \u201cEspecially in light of the fact that we have confirmed that the parties involved are campaign donors.”<\/p>\n Kong did not respond to requests for comment. Office policy prohibits him and almost all other City Attorney staff from speaking to the media.<\/p>\n In interviews with LAist, Feldstein Soto denied ever allowing money or personal relationships to affect her decisions.<\/p>\n \u201cThat\u2019s not how I roll,\u201d she said. Instead, Feldstein Soto said her decisions were based on a policy she put in place to follow the Constitution.<\/p>\n In the memo<\/a>, sent to higher-ups in the office in December, a different group of supervising prosecutors pushed back on Feldstein Soto\u2019s decision to delete criminal case data that\u2019s more than 10 years old.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto told LAist deleting the older data was a prudent step to make sure sensitive information from older criminal cases \u2014 which is confidential under state law<\/a> \u2014 doesn\u2019t fall into the wrong hands. Her office later said the older data will be kept on a physical backup, with prosecutors’ access restricted. It\u2019s unclear whether that\u2019s been followed through on.<\/p>\n While Feldstein Soto has dealt with these criticisms from career staff, a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit from a different, former senior prosecutor \u2014 alleging misconduct by Feldstein Soto \u2014 has been working its way through the courts.<\/p>\n Among other things, that case \u2014 filed by the former chief of the prosecutions branch under Feldstein Soto \u2014 alleges<\/a> the city attorney illegally ordered prosecutors to drop a case in order to help her friend and a major donor. The plaintiff, Michelle McGinnis, alleges she was fired in retaliation for opposing and disclosing unlawful actions by Feldstein Soto. The city attorney and the city\u2019s lawyers in the suit have denied the claims, saying Feldstein Soto disciplined her for legitimate reasons.<\/p>\n A judge has allowed that lawsuit to proceed, finding<\/a> the city\u2019s evidence \u201cfalls far short\u201d of proving Feldstein Soto had legitimate reasons to discipline McGinnis.<\/p>\n From the evidence, the ruling states<\/a>, \u201ca reasonable trier of fact could conclude plaintiff\u2019s protected activity was a contributing factor in defendant\u2019s adverse employment actions against her.\u201d<\/p>\n L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and six of the 15 L.A. City Council members have endorsed<\/a> Feldstein Soto in her bid for re-election in June. She lost the endorsement<\/a> of the main LAPD officers\u2019 union over the handling of a massive data breach that exposed confidential files about officers. The police union and county District Attorney Nathan Hochman are endorsing a challenger<\/a>.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto told LAist the pushback from the criminal branch of her office is in response to her efforts to reform the City Attorney\u2019s Office.<\/p>\n \u201cI came into this office under a cloud of corruption. Twenty percent of our City Council [members] were indicted or in jail. Six lawyers in this office were under investigation,\u201d Feldstein Soto said. \u201cI was elected to change the status quo. I\u2019m still doing that. And people who benefited under the old status quo have a different agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n Wildfire price gouging case<\/p>\n In the wake of last year\u2019s devastating wildfires, the City Attorney\u2019s Office has filed four criminal cases<\/a> alleging price gouging, which makes it illegal to spike prices more than 10% during an emergency.<\/p>\n In February, Feldstein Soto directed prosecutors to drop two of those cases.<\/p>\n Scott Marcus, the city attorney\u2019s criminal branch chief, informed prosecutors about that decision in a Feb. 3 email<\/a>.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto, he wrote<\/a>, was concerned the defendants did not receive cease and desist letters before the charges, did not think there was enough evidence to charge people who manage the company and did not believe the cases were an appropriate use of the office\u2019s \u201climited resources.\u201d<\/p>\n Marcus wrote that Feldstein Soto agreed with his suggestion to dismiss the cases after they \u201cverify that any victim of illegal price increases received restitution and was made whole.\u201d<\/p>\n Kong, a supervising attorney in the criminal branch, responded via email<\/a> that the order was \u201cimproper and unethical\u201d because the case was strong and one of the defendants had donated to Feldstein Soto\u2019s campaign.<\/p>\n \u201cIt is safe to say that a pattern has now emerged of the City Attorney’s personal interest in protecting her donors,\u201d Kong wrote. \u201cWe cannot have that.\u201d<\/p>\n The case Kong was referring to involves the Paddock Riding Club<\/a> in Atwater Village. In December, prosecutors at the City Attorney\u2019s Office charged<\/a> PCAM LLC, which does business as the riding club, and three members of the family that runs the business<\/a> with \u201cprice gouging animal boarding services.\u201d<\/p>\n Publicly available court records do not detail the allegations against the riding club, but the company was accused on social media<\/a> of more than tripling its normal boarding prices to evacuees of the Eaton Fire. The Paddock Riding Club apologized after online backlash and said it was working to rectify the situation.<\/p>\n The City Attorney\u2019s Office confirmed that one person paid the riding club about $1,900 at the higher rate and was later refunded.<\/p>\n The lead individual defendant\u2019s first and last name, birthdate and address corresponds with Alex Chaves Sr., who stewards the property and lives there, according to the Paddock\u2019s website<\/a>. When reached for comment, his son \u2014 also named Alex Chaves \u2014 told LAist that the Paddock is \u201cmy dad\u2019s place.\u201d Karen Richardson, a spokesperson for the city attorney, said Feldstein Soto\u2019s office does not know if the father or son is the defendant.<\/p>\n Chaves Sr. and defense attorneys in the case have not responded to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Campaign finance records<\/a> show Chaves Sr., his wife, son Alex Chaves and daughter-in-law each gave maximum-allowed<\/a> campaign contributions to Feldstein Soto on the same day in December 2024, totaling $7,200.<\/p>\n Around the time they filed the Paddock case in early December, prosecutors also filed price gouging charges against another horse boarding business \u2014 Gibson Ranch in Sunland \u2014 and its owner. Feldstein Soto told prosecutors to also drop that case when she ordered the Paddock case dropped.<\/p>\n The Gibson Ranch defendants do not show up as donating to Feldstein Soto in campaign contribution searches.<\/p>\n That case was dismissed this month. Their defense attorney, Greg Yacoubian, said the price gouging law did not apply in the Gibson Ranch case because it compared prices charged by a new owner with those from the previous owner at that location. (The price gouging law is specific<\/a> to a particular person or business selling, or offering to sell, something for a price that\u2019s over 10% higher than they charged just before a declared emergency.)<\/p>\n The arraignment hearing for the Paddock case has been postponed twice since Feldstein Soto\u2019s early February directive to dismiss it, and is now scheduled for June 18. <\/p>\n \u201cWe have not moved to dismiss because the Office is confirming the evidence in the case in accordance with appropriate practice, policies, and procedures,\u201d said a city attorney spokesperson.<\/p>\n Scott Marcus, chief of the city attorney\u2019s criminal branch, at a Feb. 26 court hearing in the Paddock case, where he told the judge the arraignment was being postponed.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto called claims of favoritism \u201cnonsense,\u201d telling LAist she knew who the Paddock defendants were but not whether they donated to her campaign.<\/p>\n She said she wanted to dismiss the two price gouging cases because prosecutors failed to follow a policy she put in place in 2023 \u2014 to only prosecute company leaders for the actions of their business if they were actively involved in committing the act or failed to fix the problem after being put on notice they could face charges.<\/p>\n A spokesperson for Feldstein Soto\u2019s administration said the City Attorney\u2019s Office has sent warning letters to almost all of the roughly 1,100 potential price gouging defendants from the wildfires as a way to achieve \u201ccompliance and restitution without having to file criminal or even civil charges.\u201d<\/p>\n The goal of regulatory prosecutions, she said, \u201cis to achieve compliance and to get restitution for the victims.\u201d<\/p>\n In follow-up emails<\/a> forwarded to colleagues who advise on ethics compliance, Kong and another supervising prosecutor in his unit expressed alarm at Feldstein Soto\u2019s directive. Kong called the Paddock case “righteous” and described an \u201cethical conundrum.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cI do not want to place our supervisors, our line deputies, or myself in a position where they will be compromised in any shape or form or worse, an accessory to unethical conduct,\u201d Kong wrote. He also noted the law does not require warning letters before filing price gouging charges.<\/p>\n [Click here to read the emails<\/a>.]<\/p>\n The McGinnis declaration<\/p>\n In a sworn court declaration last year<\/a>, McGinnis \u2014 the former criminal branch chief ousted by Feldstein Soto \u2014 alleged a range of ethics violations by the city attorney.<\/p>\n Among them, McGinnis wrote that Feldstein Soto told prosecutors to dismiss a building safety prosecution where the defense attorney was a friend whose wife was a maximum donor to her campaign. That case \u2014 against Zenith Insurance and its then-CEO Kari Lynn Van Gundy \u2014 alleged 14 criminal violations of building safety laws, including around fire safety and exit doors. Court records show Feldstein Soto\u2019s office dropped the charges against Van Gundy in January 2024, followed by dropping the case against the company in September 2024.<\/p>\n Campaign finance records corroborate the donation described in the allegations. Defense attorney Ben Reznik\u2019s wife gave a maximum campaign contribution to the city attorney in 2022, per campaign filings. Feldstein Soto said she knows Reznik\u2019s wife through social circles.<\/p>\n The city attorney \u201csimply wanted her donor\/friend\u2019s case dismissed,\u201d McGinnis wrote in her court declaration<\/a>, which was filed as part of her whistleblower retaliation lawsuit.<\/p>\n The city attorney denied friendships or donations have ever had anything to do with her decisions.<\/p>\n \u201c\u200aI’ve prosecuted tons of cases,\u201d Feldstein Soto said. \u201cI’ve filed cross complaints against all kinds of people, including donors who have called me up spitting and yelling, OK?\u201d<\/p>\n Reznik told LAist that Feldstein Soto\u2019s recommendation was to dismiss only the charges against the then-CEO \u2014 Van Gundy \u2014 but not against the company itself. The CEO \u201chad no clue\u201d about the building matters that the case was about, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cThere was absolutely no basis to name the individual [CEO] of the company\u201d as a defendant, Reznik said. The case, he said, was about \u201cvery minor infractions\u201d regarding building codes like fire doors, some of which he said did not apply to the building in question.<\/p>\n After fixing the issues that were cited and getting clearance from the fire department, the charges against the company were dismissed, Reznik said.<\/p>\n In another case, McGinnis wrote<\/a>, Feldstein Soto pressed hard \u2014 \u201cwithout evidence\u201d \u2014 to McGinnis and LAPD leaders for charges to be filed against an activist she thought had protested outside the home of another major donor. In that case, McGinnis wrote that LAPD commanders demanded a meeting with city attorney managers to object to Feldstein Soto\u2019s pressure. The city attorney says she later declined to file charges.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto\u2019s office says that allegation has \u201cno truth.\u201d As for the alleged meeting with LAPD leadership, her spokesperson said: \u201cWe have no knowledge of how the meeting came about and what happened at the meeting.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cIn no uncertain terms, the City Attorney did not and would not pressure a client on any issue,\u201d added the spokesperson. (In addition to overseeing the city\u2019s prosecutors, the city attorney is the top lawyer representing and advising city officials about their official duties.)<\/p>\n Following the judge\u2019s ruling that the city\u2019s evidence \u201cfalls far short\u201d of proving Feldstein Soto disciplined McGinnis for legitimate reasons, the lawsuit is scheduled to go to trial in early 2027.<\/p>\n How to reach me<\/p>\n If you have a tip, you can reach me on Signal. My username is ngerda.47.<\/p>\n Data deletion memo<\/p>\n In December, three senior prosecutors in the City Attorney\u2019s Office wrote a memo<\/a> objecting to what they described as a plan to \u201cpurge all data\u201d older than 10 years from the office\u2019s text-only database of criminal case details, known as the Criminal Case Management System, or CCMS, as it migrates to a new system.<\/p>\n City attorney policy has been to destroy physical paper records of criminal cases, while the database of case information has been kept for decades, except for specific types of cases where deletion is required by law.<\/p>\n The memo<\/a> was from three supervising prosecutors: Stacey Anthony, who directly supervises about three dozen criminal prosecutors, and two of her deputies.<\/p>\n They warned that deleting the data would harm victims and defendants because it\u2019s often the only remaining source of crucial information.<\/p>\n \u201cIn many instances it would result in a miscarriage of justice,\u201d states the Dec. 12 memo<\/a>, a copy of which was obtained by LAist.<\/p>\n They wrote that the older data is used daily for a variety of crucial tasks \u2014 including strengthening rape and murder cases, evaluating the history of criminal defendants, generating letters for employment and immigration purposes that no charges were filed against an arrested person, and vetting criminal histories for police officers and others seeking licenses, credentials and firearm permits.<\/p>\n The supervising prosecutors wrote that it\u2019s crucial that the older information be made readily accessible to prosecutors on a daily basis. The info is used for up to 50 requests per day to their part of the criminal branch alone, according to the memo<\/a>.<\/p>\n [Click here to read the memo<\/a>.]<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto and her office spokesperson initially confirmed the plan to delete the data altogether.<\/p>\n \u201cI wanted to purge everything older than three years\u2026but 10 years seems to be the consensus for how long we need to keep anything,\u201d Feldstein Soto told LAist in December.<\/p>\n Feldstein Soto said deleting the data was a prudent step to make sure information doesn\u2019t fall into the wrong hands. Her office said it does not have any evidence the database has been misused.<\/p>\n She said she\u2019s looked in the database just once, looking up herself and seeing information about an old DUI case against her, which she pleaded to reckless driving<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThis came up in my last campaign. It was all over the place,\u201d said Feldstein Soto.<\/p>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/1779484568_639_.jpeg\")
<\/p>\n