A Los Angeles woman is asking a judge to keep Los Angeles Rams receiver Puka Nacua away from her, claiming he bit her and used an antisemitic slur during a New Year’s Eve gathering in the city. The civil petition, filed this month in Los Angeles County court, includes a photograph the woman says shows a bite mark and requests a temporary restraining order. A judge declined to grant immediate protection and instead set a full hearing for April 14.
What the court filing alleges
According to the New York Post, the petitioner, identified in court papers as Madison Atiabi, says the incident unfolded on Dec. 31, 2025, after a group outing in Century City. She alleges Nacua bit her hard enough to break the skin. The application also claims that during dinner, Nacua said, "f—k all the Jews," language the filing says left her frightened and pushed her to seek court protection.
The judge declined to issue a temporary order at the initial appearance but scheduled an evidentiary hearing for April 14, when the court will decide whether longer-term protections should be put in place.
Nacua's recent controversy
The restraining order request arrives on the heels of a separate flare-up in December 2025, when Nacua appeared on a livestream with streamer Adin Ross and used a gesture many viewers criticized as antisemitic. He later issued a public apology. That episode and the NFL’s response were reported by the Associated Press and summarized by WTOP, and outlets including Pro Football Network covered the backlash that followed. The earlier controversy helped put Nacua’s off-field conduct under a brighter spotlight as this new legal claim emerged.
How the court process works
Temporary restraining orders are short-term civil protections a judge can grant on an emergency basis, but the Los Angeles County Superior Court notes that a full hearing is typically required before any longer-term order is issued. At that hearing, the judge listens to testimony, reviews documents and other evidence, and decides whether the legal standard for ongoing protection has been met.
The April 14 session is expected to serve as that forum, with both sides able to present witnesses and their version of events. Even if the judge ultimately declines to enter a permanent restraining order, the court can still put other enforceable protections or civil remedies in place, depending on what is proved.
What comes next
The April 14 hearing will determine whether Atiabi obtains longer-term protection and could address any additional requests in her filing. As of the initial reporting, neither Nacua nor the Rams had issued a new public statement specifically responding to the petition, according to the New York Post.
The NFL has previously said it condemns discrimination and reviews off-field conduct separately from civil proceedings, a stance reiterated in coverage of the December incident by the Associated Press. How the league might respond to the restraining order allegations remains to be seen and could depend on what emerges in court next month.
.jpg){kind=link}