A Los Angeles County taxpayer is asking a judge to yank back a $2 million confidential settlement paid to the county’s chief executive last summer, arguing the deal was an illegal gift of public funds. The lawsuit seeks a court order forcing the county to recover every dollar.
Filed this week by attorney Alexander K. Robinson on behalf of resident Ana Cristina Lee Escudero, the complaint says county supervisors signed off on the August 2025 payment without any colorable legal claim and misused the litigation exemption to hash it out behind closed doors, according to LAist. The complaint posted on DocumentCloud asks a court to order repayment and quotes CEO Fesia Davenport’s earlier correspondence saying she had "no intentions of litigating this matter."
Background on the payout
The $2 million payment surfaced publicly in October 2025, after records showed the Board of Supervisors had approved tentative terms in a July 29 closed session and Davenport signed the final paperwork in mid‑August, according to reporting by the Los Angeles Times and earlier earlier coverage of the settlement. Davenport’s letters say Measure G, the 2024 ballot reform that will make the CEO an elected position, had damaged her reputation and caused “reputational harm, embarrassment and physical, emotional and mental distress.”
What the law says
California’s Constitution bars gratuitous gifts of public money, and courts have said settlements are lawful only when they resolve colorable claims and do not exceed an agency’s maximum exposure. Decisions such as Jordan v. Department of Motor Vehicles and related appeals‑court opinions explain that payments that effectively compensate for non‑existent claims can violate the gift clause.
Union anger and transparency concerns
Union leaders representing thousands of county workers say many members were stunned to learn the CEO had negotiated a multimillion‑dollar payout after employees were told there was no money for raises, LAist reported. The settlement’s secrecy, including the county’s decision not to publicly "report out" the deal in the way it usually does for large payouts, has fueled louder calls for clearer disclosure of executive settlements.
What’s next
The filing asks a court to declare the August payment an illegal gift and order repayment, according to the complaint posted on DocumentCloud. County attorneys have previously argued in letters that the gift clause does not block payments made to "advance a legitimate public purpose," a position reflected in reporting about the dispute. The case now heads to court, where judges will have to decide whether the county faced a real legal exposure or whether the payout crossed the constitutional line.
