Latest news with #LosAngelesCountySuperiorCourt
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
A Comprehensive Guide to the Hadid Family: Gigi and Bella Hadid, Their Siblings and More
Gigi and Bella Hadid announced in May 2025 that they'd recently discovered they had a secret sister. The supermodels confirmed their father, Mohamed Hadid, had a brief relationship with a woman named Terri Hatfield Dull following his split from their mother, Yolanda Hadid, in 2000. Dull later became pregnant, but her daughter Aydan Nix didn't realize Mohamed was her biological dad until she was 19 years old. Mohamed is the father of six children in total, as he shares daughters Marielle and Alana with his first wife, Mary Butler, as well as two daughters, Gigi and Bella, and son Anwar with his second wife, Yolanda. His daughter Gigi started a family of her own with the birth of daughter Khai in September 2020. The model later split from Khai's father, Zayn Malik, and is currently romantically linked to Hollywood icon Bradley Cooper. Gigi and Bella Hadid's Dad Mohamed Shares His Candid Advice for His Kids: 'Be Safe and Be Confident' Keep scrolling for a look at the Hadid family: Born in Nazareth, Mohamed and his family fled to Lebanon during the Palestine War before settling down in Washington, D.C. in the early 1960s. Mohamed's early business ventures included selling classic cars and exporting equipment to the Middle East before he transitioned to real estate. Mohamed became one of the most prominent builders in Bel Air and Beverly Hills. His mansion Le Belvedere sold for a staggering $50 million in 2010, while the 48,000-square-foot home he called The Crescent Palace netted $58 million. He ran into legal trouble while trying to build a mansion on Strada Vecchia Road in Beverly Hills when it was opposed by the local Homeowners Alliance. The Los Angeles city council voted in 2015 to pursue criminal charges against Mohamed for violating zoning laws by not following planning orders in building the estate. When the developer agreed to plead no contest, he was sentenced to 200 hours of community service as well as paying a fine of $3,000 and returning $14,000 to the city of Los Angeles. He also had to pay out $3 million in a 2018 civil lawsuit filed by neighbors. A Los Angeles County Superior Court ordered the estate on Strada Vecchia Road to be demolished in 2022 because it posed 'legitimate risk of suffering damage and harm to [neighbors'] homes.' Mohamed eventually sold the land for $5 million. He is currently in a relationship with author Keni Silva. Mohamed's marriage to first wife Butler lasted around 12 years, and they share daughters Marielle, born 1980, and Alana, born 1985. The mogul's spokesperson told The Washington Post in 1992 that his split from Butler was 'amicable,' yet the former couple went through a difficult final few years in their marriage. The riverfront home where the Hadids lived in McLean, Virginia, reportedly went into foreclosure, forcing Butler and her two young children to move into a rented home in Potomac, Maryland, according to The Post. Once called the 'Lead Hadid' by younger half-sister Gigi, Marielle lived outside of the spotlight as the founder of Living Well With Marielle. The company offers interior design and wardrobe consultation, party planning and seasonal decorating services. Marielle is a mother of two: son Colton was born in 2014 and daughter Coco was born in 2012. Fashion designer Alana has worked with numerous brands, including Lou & Grey and her own emoji-centric garment company, Current Moji. Alana launched a podcast called 'The Seeds' in May 2025. She promised 'unfiltered convos, deep dives and chaos (the good kind)' with influencers and content creators. Shortly after his 1992 split from Butler, Mohamed started dating Dutch supermodel Yolanda. The couple tied the knot in 1994 and welcomed three children — Gigi, born 1995, Bella, born 1996, and Anwar, born 1999 — before divorcing in 2000. Yolanda started her career with the Ford modeling agency and walked runways in Paris, Milan and New York City before marrying Mohamed. Following her 2000 divorce, she joined the cast of The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills for its third season in 2012. Celebrities Who Love Models: Tom Brady, Leonardo DiCaprio and More The Bravo reality show documented her marriage to 16-time Grammy winner David Foster — which lasted from 2011 to 2017 — and her longterm battle with chronic Lyme disease. More recently, Yolanda has served as a judge on Holland's Next Top Model and guest judge on Project Runway. She announced her engagement to boyfriend Joseph Jingoli in August 2024. Gigi started her modeling career at age 2 when she appeared in a Baby Guess campaign after being discovered by Guess cofounder Paul Marciano. She took a break from modeling as an adolescent to focus on school before returning to the runway in 2011. She quickly became one of the world's most famous supermodels as she walked runways for Versace, Chanel, Fendi, Marc Jacobs and dozens of other major brands. Her love life has also generated significant interest worldwide. Having dated Australian singer Cody Simpson and Joe Jonas as a teenager, Gigi made the announcement in April 2020 that she was expecting her first child with boyfriend Zayn Malik. Their daughter Khai arrived in September. Gigi Hadid's Complete Dating History: From Cody Simpson to Zayn Malik Gigi ended her relationship with Malik after he entered a no-contest plea to four counts of harassment against her mother, Yolanda. (Malik was sentenced to 360 days of probation and ordered to attend anger management counseling in October 2021.) In May 2025, Gigi went Instagram official with boyfriend Bradley Cooper after dating for two years. Bella followed in big sister Gigi's footsteps with her first modeling job for women's clothing brand Flynn Skye at age 16. She set a new record for appearing on the most Vogue September covers in one year in 2017 after gracing the front page of the magazine in China, Spain, Brazil, Australia and Arabia. She was chosen as Model of the Year by the British Fashion Council in 2022. Bella was charged with driving under the influence in July 2014. She received six months of probation and had her driving license suspended for one year. The model announced in August 2023 that she was living a sober lifestyle. During her four-year relationship with The Weeknd, Bella starred in the musician's 'In the Night' music video. The couple called it quits in August 2019. Bella has been in a long-term relationship with professional equestrian Adan Banuelos since 2023. Like his two older sisters, Anwar started modeling at a young age. He debuted for Moschino at age 17 in June 2016 and has since worked with Rihanna's Fenty x Puma line, Hugo Boss and Ralph Lauren. He was selected as the face of Valentino's signature fragrance Born in Roma in 2019. Anwar dated heiress Nicola Peltz (who later married Brooklyn Beckham) and Kendall Jenner before embarking on a relationship with pop star Dua Lipa from June 2019 to December 2021. He was later linked to model Sophia Piccirilli. Gigi and Bella announced in May 2025 that they'd discovered they have a half-sister named Aydan, born in 2002. The Hadid sisters confirmed that their father had a brief relationship with Terri Hatfield Dull after his divorce from Yolanda. '[She was] born and raised in Florida, growing up with the man she lovingly knew as her father until his sudden passing when she was 19,' the Hadids said in a statement. Aydan only discovered her connection to the Hadid family when she 'decided to take a genetic test out of curiosity' at age 19. Gigi and Bella Hadid said that they'd 'embraced Aydan with open arms' ever since they first met in 2023.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Did insurers collude to force homeowners onto state insurance plan? What to know from two blockbuster lawsuits
The firestorms that swept through Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other communities Jan. 7 not only devastated thousands of homeowners but highlighted a giant problem: the growth of the state's insurer of last resort. The California FAIR Plan Assn. offers policies that cover less, but typically are expensive. Now, California home insurers are facing twin lawsuits filed by homeowners who accuse them of colluding over the last several years to force them into the plan in order to profit from the higher premiums while reducing their liabilities in the event of a catastrophe — just what the lawsuits allege happened after the fires. The result, according to one suit, is the insurers "collectively reaped a windfall worth billions of dollars." The Times spoke to both sides, as well as multiple experts to better understand the high-stakes litigation, which faces obstacles but could shake up California's home insurance industry. Who is being sued and exactly what do the lawsuits allege? The Los Angeles County Superior Court suits filed last month name more than 200 insurers and affiliates as defendants, including State Farm, Farmers and Mercury that account for about three quarters of the state's property and casualty insurance sales. The lawsuits accuse them of unfair competition and violations of the Cartwright Act, a state law that prohibits agreements to restrain trade, fix prices or reduce competition. The homeowners assert the insurers engaged in a "group boycott" to terminate policies in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and other fire-prone neighborhoods in early 2023 and then refused to write new policies. That left the homeowners with no choice but to join the FAIR Plan, where they paid more but the policies are limited, including through a $3-million coverage cap on dwellings. Read more: Insurers seek to surcharge California homeowners for L.A. County fire costs How would the insurers benefit from such a scheme? The FAIR Plan was established by the Legislature in 1968 but is operated by the state's licensed home insurers that share in its profits and losses. By moving homeowners onto the plan, the insurers would profit from higher premiums, while being exposed to fewer losses due to its limited policies. The result was an effective rate increase without the insurers having to undergo a state review, the lawsuits allege. Why are there two lawsuits? One lawsuit is a proposed class action and seeks to have policyholders compensated for the alleged higher premiums they paid. The other seeks to compensate homeowners who experienced losses during the fires and then suffered further due to their alleged inadequate FAIR Plan coverage. Each lawsuit seeks treble damages. What do the lawsuits cite as evidence of collusion? The litigation claims that the collusion and boycott were carried out through meetings of the FAIR Plan's governing committee and subcommittees, as well as weekly meetings of the Personal Insurance Federation of California and the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., or APCIA, two leading trade groups, among other mechanisms. However, the lawsuits do not offer any written documentation from these meetings. The lawsuits also note that last year, insurers won the right from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to surcharge their own residential and commercial policyholders if the FAIR Plan runs out of money — which it has since the fires. One of the lawsuits cites the new policy as evidence of the insurers' "determination to act collusively." APCIA issued a statement saying that it has a legal right to voice industry concerns to the government and that it "complies with all applicable antitrust laws." Read more: Palisades fire victims seek court order forcing FAIR Plan to turn over claims documents So how can the allegations be proved in court? Stephen Larson, a former federal judge whose firm Larson is one of the two representing the plaintiffs, said that the discovery process will be key. "We did a tremendous amount of due diligence prior to bringing this lawsuit, and we anticipate there will be requests for documents, there will be interrogatories [written questions answered under oath] and there will be depositions. We're going to be have the opportunity to depose those that we believe are responsible for this." What do insurers say about all this? Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation, said there was nothing collusive about insurers' behavior. Instead, it was a logical consequence of being unable to get adequate rate increases as costs and wildfire danger have increased. "What business, whether the insurance industry or any other business, can survive a highly inflationary cost structure without the ability to raise its prices? We've been predicting why the FAIR Plan will grow — we're not allowed to have meetings we've held for 30 years?" he said. Read more: Insurer of last resort kept growing. Then L.A. fire victims paid the price Will it be difficult to prove collusion? Yes, it will be a tall order, legal experts say. Donald Pepperman, a partner at Waymaker in Los Angeles who specializes in antitrust litigation, said a key defense probably will be that the insurers acted in their own economic self interest in dropping policyholders. "Why should they be forced to stay in a market that's not profitable when there are other markets in California where there's less disasters?" he asked, adding that without more evidence of collusion the lawsuit may not get far — and finding that will be difficult. "I don't know that they're going to be that unsophisticated, that in the FAIR Plan minutes of a meeting they're going to admit they conspired to pull out of markets or fixed prices." Tom Baker, a professor who specializes in insurance at the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Carey Law school, said the plaintiffs will need to show that they somehow acted in a more "extreme" manner than was supported by their actuarial data, which he agreed will be challenging — though he said the discovery process is a powerful tool. "The bright side of this lawsuit is that we're gonna get some information, but count me skeptical about whether they're gonna succeed, unless they can find some kind of smoking guns." Are there less nefarious reasons for insurers pulling back from the California market? Yes, there are alternative explanations. James Naughton, a former actuary and a professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, said that advances in data management have allowed insurers to collect more data than ever about the risks they face, with much of it the same across insurers. "What could appear to be collusion could also be companies just using the same data. If I'm an actuary at one company, it's not hard to be an actuary at another company. The information moves," he said. Naughton added that there also can be "soft collusion," a concept that refers to actors in a market trading information or having an understanding of their competitors' strategies, leading to similar decision-making. Read more: Consumer group sues insurance commissioner over Fair Plan assessments on state homeowners What do the plaintiff's attorneys say about all of this? "Do we expect to find a document from party A to party B, saying today we're going to have a meeting to discuss how we're going to collude with each other on avoiding risk and going to FAIR Plan agenda item? No, I don't expect we're going to find that," said Michael Bidart, with Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, the other plaintiffs' firm. "Rare is the case in any litigation where you have a document that provides the ultimate direct evidence." Instead, the attorneys said they will rely on accumulated evidence to show how the insurers allegedly conspired to drop policyholders in order to move them to the FAIR Plan for their own benefit. "So anything else we get on top of it is just icing on the cake," Bidart said. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Did insurers collude to force homeowners onto state insurance plan? What to know from two blockbuster lawsuits
The firestorms that swept through Pacific Palisades, Altadena and other communities Jan. 7 not only devastated thousands of homeowners but highlighted a giant problem: the growth of the state's insurer of last resort. The California FAIR Plan Assn. offers policies that cover less, but typically are expensive. Now, California home insurers are facing twin lawsuits filed by homeowners who accuse them of colluding over the last several years to force them into the plan in order to profit from the higher premiums while reducing their liabilities in the event of a catastrophe — just what the lawsuits allege happened after the fires. The result, according to one suit, is the insurers 'collectively reaped a windfall worth billions of dollars.' The Times spoke to both sides, as well as multiple experts to better understand the high-stakes litigation, which faces obstacles but could shake up California's home insurance industry. Who is being sued and exactly what do the lawsuits allege? The Los Angeles County Superior Court suits filed last month name more than 200 insurers and affiliates as defendants, including State Farm, Farmers and Mercury that account for about three quarters of the state's property and casualty insurance sales. The lawsuits accuse them of unfair competition and violations of the Cartwright Act, a state law that prohibits agreements to restrain trade, fix prices or reduce competition. The homeowners assert the insurers engaged in a 'group boycott' to terminate policies in Pacific Palisades, Malibu, Altadena and other fire-prone neighborhoods in early 2023 and then refused to write new policies. That left the homeowners with no choice but to join the FAIR Plan, where they paid more but the policies are limited, including through a $3-million coverage cap on dwellings. How would the insurers benefit from such a scheme? The FAIR Plan was established by the Legislature in 1968 but is operated by the state's licensed home insurers that share in its profits and losses. By moving homeowners onto the plan, the insurers would profit from higher premiums, while being exposed to fewer losses due to its limited policies. The result was an effective rate increase without the insurers having to undergo a state review, the lawsuits allege. Why are there two lawsuits? One lawsuit is a proposed class action and seeks to have policyholders compensated for the alleged higher premiums they paid. The other seeks to compensate homeowners who experienced losses during the fires and then suffered further due to their alleged inadequate FAIR Plan coverage. Each lawsuit seeks treble damages. What do the lawsuits cite as evidence of collusion? The litigation claims that the collusion and boycott were carried out through meetings of the FAIR Plan's governing committee and subcommittees, as well as weekly meetings of the Personal Insurance Federation of California and the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., or APCIA, two leading trade groups, among other mechanisms. However, the lawsuits do not offer any written documentation from these meetings. The lawsuits also note that last year, insurers won the right from Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara to surcharge their own residential and commercial policyholders if the FAIR Plan runs out of money — which it has since the fires. One of the lawsuits cites the new policy as evidence of the insurers' 'determination to act collusively.' APCIA issued a statement saying that it has a legal right to voice industry concerns to the government and that it 'complies with all applicable antitrust laws.' So how can the allegations be proved in court? Stephen Larson, a former federal judge whose firm Larson is one of the two representing the plaintiffs, said that the discovery process will be key. 'We did a tremendous amount of due diligence prior to bringing this lawsuit, and we anticipate there will be requests for documents, there will be interrogatories [written questions answered under oath] and there will be depositions. We're going to be have the opportunity to depose those that we believe are responsible for this.' What do insurers say about all this? Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation, said there was nothing collusive about insurers' behavior. Instead, it was a logical consequence of being unable to get adequate rate increases as costs and wildfire danger have increased. 'What business, whether the insurance industry or any other business, can survive a highly inflationary cost structure without the ability to raise its prices? We've been predicting why the FAIR Plan will grow — we're not allowed to have meetings we've held for 30 years?' he said. Will it be difficult to prove collusion? Yes, it will be a tall order, legal experts say. Donald Pepperman, a partner at Waymaker in Los Angeles who specializes in antitrust litigation, said a key defense probably will be that the insurers acted in their own economic self interest in dropping policyholders. 'Why should they be forced to stay in a market that's not profitable when there are other markets in California where there's less disasters?' he asked, adding that without more evidence of collusion the lawsuit may not get far — and finding that will be difficult. 'I don't know that they're going to be that unsophisticated, that in the FAIR Plan minutes of a meeting they're going to admit they conspired to pull out of markets or fixed prices.' Tom Baker, a professor who specializes in insurance at the University of Pennsylvania's Penn Carey Law school, said the plaintiffs will need to show that they somehow acted in a more 'extreme' manner than was supported by their actuarial data, which he agreed will be challenging — though he said the discovery process is a powerful tool. 'The bright side of this lawsuit is that we're gonna get some information, but count me skeptical about whether they're gonna succeed, unless they can find some kind of smoking guns.' Are there less nefarious reasons for insurers pulling back from the California market? Yes, there are alternative explanations. James Naughton, a former actuary and a professor at the University of Virginia's Darden School of Business, said that advances in data management have allowed insurers to collect more data than ever about the risks they face, with much of it the same across insurers. 'What could appear to be collusion could also be companies just using the same data. If I'm an actuary at one company, it's not hard to be an actuary at another company. The information moves,' he said. Naughton added that there also can be 'soft collusion,' a concept that refers to actors in a market trading information or having an understanding of their competitors' strategies, leading to similar decision-making. What do the plaintiff's attorneys say about all of this? 'Do we expect to find a document from party A to party B, saying today we're going to have a meeting to discuss how we're going to collude with each other on avoiding risk and going to FAIR Plan agenda item? No, I don't expect we're going to find that,' said Michael Bidart, with Shernoff Bidart Echeverria, the other plaintiffs' firm. 'Rare is the case in any litigation where you have a document that provides the ultimate direct evidence.' Instead, the attorneys said they will rely on accumulated evidence to show how the insurers allegedly conspired to drop policyholders in order to move them to the FAIR Plan for their own benefit. 'So anything else we get on top of it is just icing on the cake,' Bidart said.
Perth Now
23-05-2025
- Perth Now
Jennifer Aniston stalking suspect requests second psychiatric evaluation
Jennifer Aniston's alleged stalker has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial. The former 'Friends' star was not in court in Hollywood on Thursday (22.05.25) to hear that psychiatrist Dr. Phani Tumu had examined Jimmy Wayne Carwyle - who is accused of ramming his car into the front gate of the actress' home in Bel Air - and felt he was "currently incompetent to stand trial". However, Deputy Public Defender Robert Krauss told Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maria Cavalluzzi that the 48-year-old defendant was asking for a 'second opinion", as is his right. The judge appointed a second psychiatrist, Dr. Kory Knapke, to examine Carwyle and another hearing will take place next week. The man is charged with one felony count of stalking and one of vandalism, along with an aggravating circumstance of the threat of great bodily harm. At a hearing earlier this month, a not guilty plea was entered by Deputy Public Defender Toral Malik but she questioned his mental competency. Carwyle has been remanded in custody since the incident at Jennifer's home on 5 May and is accused of having harassed the 'Morning Show' actress since March 2023 by sending "unwanted social media, voicemail and email messages." The judge has ordered him not to contact or go anywhere near the 56-year-old star. Although Jennifer was at home at the time her gates were struck, she didn't come into contact with anyone and the man was stopped in her driveway until police arrived at the scene. A public information officer from the Los Angeles Police Department told PEOPLE: "There was a security guard on premises who was able to detain that suspect until officers arrived, at which time they took him into custody without incident. "The resident was home at the time." The authorities noted that while the suspect has sustained minor injuries, no one else was hurt in the incident. Los Angeles County District Attorney Nathan Hochman previously vowed to "aggressively prosecute" stalkers. He said in a statement: "My office is committed to aggressively prosecuting those who stalk and terrorise others, ensuring they are held accountable."
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Halle Bailey Gets Restraining Order Against Ex After Alleged Physical Abuse — Report
Halle Bailey reportedly requested a restraining order against her ex-boyfriend and the father of her child, DDG, accusing him of physical abuse. The court has since granted the actor a temporary restraining order that protects her and her son, Halo, from the rapper. TMZ cited the official court documents, sharing details about Bailey's claims, alleging that the abuse began in January and other intense encounters in the following months. According to the court documents obtained by PEOPLE, the mom wrote in the filings that she 'cannot allow this abuse any longer.' TMZ acquired official court documents on Halle Bailey's restraining order against her ex, DDG, with whom she shares a co-parenting relationship. In the filings, she detailed alleged encounters of physical abuse she claimed to have suffered at the hands of her former boyfriend. Bailey filed a request with the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Tuesday, which has since been granted. It orders DDG, whose full name is Darryl Dwayne Granberry Jr., to remain 100 yards away from the mother-son duo at all times, including at her vehicle and their son's school. The 'Little Mermaid' actor alleged instances dating back to January, when she claimed the abuse started. The former couple welcomed their baby boy in December 2023 and broke up last October, announcing their split on Instagram and maintaining a co-parenting relationship thereafter. As per Bailey's claims, DDG was frequently verbally and physically abusive toward her in front of 2-year-old Halo. She also mentioned an incident from March when the rapper entered her home without permission. Additionally, Halle Bailey's filing for the restraining order included photo evidence to back her claims against DDG. These snaps showed bruises on her arms and a chipped tooth as a result of the latter's alleged assault. The documents further revealed that one such instance prompted her to file a police complaint after he destroyed her home's ring camera and tried to take their kid without her consent, despite the toddler being sick. Bailey had also submitted text messages, among other evidence, to verify her claims. Originally reported by Nikita Mahato on Reality Tea. The post Halle Bailey Gets Restraining Order Against Ex After Alleged Physical Abuse — Report appeared first on Mandatory.
