Latest news with #Rokita
Chicago Tribune
18-07-2025
- Business
- Chicago Tribune
Indiana AG sues property management company over Hammond and East Chicago leases
Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita said Friday his office sued a management company that runs at least three properties in Hammond and East Chicago, saying they put deceptive or illegal fine print in renters' leases. The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Lake Superior Court, accuses IBIN Management, LLC of breaking Indiana's consumer protection laws. The company runs three properties on the 4300 block of Baring Avenue in East Chicago, 200 block of Waltham Street in Hammond, and 900 block of 174th Street in Hammond. Various leases tried to stretch how long it would take to give back security deposits past the 45 days required by state law, had renters pay fees for repairs that landlords should cover, let landlords go into the units without notification, or tried to block renters from seeking damages allowed by state law, among other issues, Rokita said in a release. The lawsuit cites three people who rented in Hammond or East Chicago. Rokita said he is encouraging anyone affected to call his office. 'Hoosiers deserve fair and transparent treatment when renting their homes,' Rokita said in the release. 'This lawsuit sends a clear message: we will hold accountable those who exploit tenants with deceptive lease agreements that misrepresent their rights and obligations. Protecting Indiana consumers is a top priority for our office.' The company has received several one-star reviews dating back to at least 2022 on the Better Business Bureau's website. The agency gave it an F rating for not responding to complaints. A woman who answered a listed number Friday for the company declined comment. It lists a Crown Point post office box as its address in state records. The lawsuit wants a legal injunction to force the company to stop its practices, as well as fines and restitution. 'We are committed to ensuring that landlords and property managers play by the rules,' Rokita said. 'We will continue to stand up for Hoosiers and fight against deceptive practices that harm our communities.' Affected renters can call his office at 1-800-382-5516 or go to
Yahoo
18-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Indiana Supreme Court denies AG Rokita's motion to dismiss disciplinary complaint
The entrance to the Indiana Supreme Court's Statehouse courtroom. (Whitney Downard/Indiana Capital Chronicle) Indiana's Supreme Court on Friday denied Attorney General Todd Rokita's call to dismiss a second disciplinary action against him — both stemming from public comments made three years ago about his investigation of an Indianapolis abortion provider. 'It is exceptionally rare for respondents to file motions to dismiss disciplinary complaints, and even rarer that we grant them,' Justice Derek Molter wrote in the unanimous opinion. The high court's denial came without prejudice — allowing Rokita to potentially refile — 'because we conclude the arguments he makes in his motion are better addressed through the hearing process and our subsequent review,' Molter continued. The court appointed a three-member hearing panel instead of its typical lone hearing officer, accommodating a proposal from Rokita. 'Appointing three distinguished members of the bench and bar to serve as hearing officers is particularly appropriate in this case, which involves conduct at the intersection of law and politics,' a concurring opinion from Justice Christopher Goff said. He noted that the political role assumed by many state attorneys general in contemporary America creates tension with licensing obligations that they assume as members of their state's bar. 'When a licensed attorney, entrusted with the full legal power of a state, advocates (or legally implements) divisive policies advocated by national partisans, their statements and actions can, in some circumstances, be both politically popular within their state and violative of its rules of professional conduct for attorneys,' Goff said. 'And because the legal power of a state attorney general is so great, such popular but unprofessional conduct can hurt real people and impede official processes. When that happens, people harmed by such conduct will look to the attorney-discipline process for relief,' he continued. Indiana taxpayers have covered more than $491,000 in legal bills defending Rokita in multiple disciplinary investigations and formal ethics cases, according to records obtained by the Indiana Capital Chronicle. In a 2022 interview with Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, Rokita called Indianapolis doctor Caitlin Bernard an 'activist acting as a doctor' and said his office would be investigating her conduct. Bernard, an OB-GYN, oversaw a medication abortion for a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio in 2022. That November, in a split decision and public reprimand, the high court justices found that he had violated two of the Rules of Professional Conduct for lawyers: They said Rokita's comments constituted an 'extrajudicial statement' that he knew — or reasonably should have known — would be publicly disseminated and would prejudice related legal proceedings. They also said his statements had 'no substantial purpose' other than to embarrass or burden Bernard. Rokita and Indiana's Discplinary Commission disputed over a third charge — engaging in conduct 'that is prejudicial to the administration of justice' — which the commission agreed to dismiss in exchange for 'admission to misconduct' on the others. In a sworn affidavit, Rokita admitted to the two violations and acknowledged he couldn't have defended himself successfully on the charges if the matter were tried. But the same day the reprimand was handed down, Rokita called the dispute a 'failed attempt to derail our work' in a lengthy and unrepentant news release. He said he had 'evidence and explanation' for what he said on air, but chose not to fight the complaint any further to save 'taxpayer money and distraction.' The Disciplinary Commission filed a new round of charges against him in January, alleging he wasn't being truthful when he told the court he was accepting responsibility for his actions. Rokita attempted to dismiss the new complaint in February, which the Disciplinary Commission opposing his motion. 'We reach no judgment at this stage about those allegations or defenses because it is premature to evaluate them through a motion to dismiss where the parties are arguing over competing inferences that may depend on evidence outside the current record,' Molter wrote in the court's opinion. The case will now move before a three-judge hearing panel. Members were picked from the northern, central, and southern regions of Indiana to 'protect against a public perception that political considerations could unduly influence a single officer,' according to the opinion. They include Indiana Court of Appeals Judges Cale J. Bradford and Nancy H. Vaidik, and attorney William G. Hussman. CONTACT US Bradford and Vaidik are currently serve on the Indiana Court of Appeals, and both have been elected by their colleagues to serve as their court's Chief Judge in the past. Hussmann is a practicing attorney whose public and private sector experience Indiana Supreme Court includes serving as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, as a deputy attorney general, and as a staff attorney with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission. The court also encouraged the hearing panel to discuss mediation with Rokita and the commission. 'While we are only at the pleadings stage, the parties' discussion of the claims through their early filings is already voluminous,' Molter wrote. 'And up to this point, their submissions, though extensive, reveal very little factual disagreement. That disagreement is vehement, but it also seems narrow, so there may not be much to litigate through a hearing.' The panel will submit a report, and the court will review the evidence and evaluate the law. Molter noted the court doesn't defer to the report but does give it more emphasis because of the direct observation of witnesses included. Possible sanctions include a private or public reprimand; suspension from practice for a set period of time; suspension from practice with reinstatement only after the lawyer proves fitness; and permanent disbarment. Senior Reporter Casey Smith contributed. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
Indianapolis Star
11-07-2025
- Indianapolis Star
Rokita accuses Monroe County sheriff of violating ICE hold and releasing sex offender
State Attorney General Todd Rokita says Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté broke the law and ignored an ICE hold for a felon charged with multiple sex offenses in Bloomington. The person at the heart of the controversy is 38-year-old Manuel Lopez Lopez. The Bloomington man pleaded guilty earlier this year to a 2024 sexual assault and was released in February after 222 days in jail. Then on July 2, he was arrested and charged with attempted rape, criminal confinement and battery, in the attack of a 26-year-old woman walking on Bloomington's B-Line Trail. More: Lopez arrested again Good Samaritan intervenes, detaining man attacking woman on B-Line Trail "ICE confirmed with our office that this individual is an illegal alien and the Monroe County Sheriff Department released him back into the Bloomington community after his crimes in 2024," Rokita said. "Instead of honoring ICE's detainer request and getting this criminal out of our country entirely, he was released back into the community and has assaulted someone else. "He is back in Monroe Couny jail. Don't make the same mistake. Work with ICE this time and DEPORT HIM! This should've never happened and we will continue to hold Sheriff Marte accountable." The statement on X featured Lopez's mug shot from his July 2 arrest. Marté fired back at Rokita's allegation, issuing a statement on July 10 standing his ground. He said there was no ICE hold and that his office didn't do anything wrong. "On Feb. 19, 2025, Manuel Lopez Lopez entered a plea agreement, was convicted on a Level 6 Felony-Confinement, and was released by the court," the news release said. "At the time of his release, there was not an immigration detainer on file for him with the Monroe County Correctional Center." He said the jail had received what's called a 'Request for Advance Notification of Release' from ICE requesting law enforcement provide notice of release to ICE. "This form specifically states that it 'does not request or authorize that you detain the subject beyond the time that he or she is scheduled for release from your custody,'' Marté said. "That request was honored, and ICE was notified before Lopez was released." Marté recently updated immigration policies to be in line with changes in state law. Sheriff updates policy County amends jail immigration detention policy to comply with new law; lawsuit continues "The Sheriff's Office crafted the Standard Operating Procedure to comply with all applicable laws and constitutional guarantees," the sheriff said. "It is the position of the Monroe County Sheriff's Office that the current policy balances our obligation to enforce the laws while ensuring that constitutional rights are protected." A 2024 lawsuit Rokita filed against Marté over interpretation of immigration policies is pending in Monroe Circuit Court, with a ruling in a motion to dismiss expected soon. Rokita claims the law requires all people arrested without legal citizenship be reported to U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials and detained.
Yahoo
25-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Indiana Supreme Court considers Attorney General suits against TikTok
Indiana Supreme Court Justices question defendants in a case between the Indiana Attorney General's Office and the owners of TikTok. (Screenshot from oral arguments) Indiana's highest court weighed allegations of TikTok's alleged deceptive practices in the Hoosier State on Tuesday, skeptical of arguments from both sides about jurisdictional issues. The two suits, heard together, were filed by Attorney General Todd Rokita against the popular, short-form video app in December 2022 in Fort Wayne. He accused TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance, of violating Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act with its age rating for those 12 and older — claiming that it contained more sexual content, profanity and drug references than advertised. Rokita's TikTok legal battle part of array of contingency fee contracts The above made TikTok unsafe for children, he continued. Additionally, he claimed in a separate lawsuit that the company failed to protect user data from the Chinese Communist Party. Justices noted ongoing national security concerns about the app, including a rare bipartisan law requiring ByteDance to sell the app to an American company. President Donald Trump, who embraced the app in his second campaign, has intervened and delayed that law's implementation three times. 'Congress doesn't agree on much, but they agreed on this. And the (U.S.) Supreme Court said it's okay to (ban) in this context,' said Justice Christoper Goff. 'But now, we're on pause … this seems to be a completely unique circumstance. And I cannot, for the life of me, imagine, with all of that going on, why it would be appropriate for us, or reasonable for us, to cite the precedent to exercise jurisdiction here and write a rule for all time.' Conservative and liberal lawmakers both cite worries about TikTok's parent company, Beijing-based ByteDance, and its ties to the Chinese Communist Party. Some have openly wondered if the app feeds user data to Chinese authorities, including Rokita. 'Our lawsuit against TikTok was filed to protect our children and to protect our data privacy that we allege is being stolen by the Chinese Communist Party. We maintain their business model intentionally deceives children and adults to drive up profits by saying it is appropriate for kids and that your personal data is safe. Neither is true,' the office said in a statement in 2023. A trial court judge dismissed Rokita's suits but the Indiana Court of Appeals reinstated it. State attorneys on Tuesday countered that the 'federal law over the divestiture of ownership of TikTok has nothing to do with this case,' maintaining that the issue at hand was 'deceptive and misleading representations made to consumers.' Attorney Brian Paul, representing TikTok and ByteDance, argued that the Indiana Supreme Court wasn't the appropriate venue for the case, which is the first issue before the justices. 'Indiana is seeking to punish TikTok for statements that were not made in Indiana, that are not about Indiana, that were not targeted at Indiana and were not tailored to Indiana,' Paul said in his opening remarks. The state previously argued that justices could intervene because Hoosiers enter into user contracts with TikTok when they download the app. Paul said because TikTok has no physical presence in the state, not even a server, Indiana wasn't appropriate for the lawsuit — though the company makes $46 million off of Hoosier data annually by using collected data to tailor advertiser content, plaintiffs said. Justices seemed to doubt that reasoning, pointing to other products, like magazines shipped across state boundaries, and legal precedent. 'TikTok seeks to escape the rules that apply to everyone else, from print magazines to burger franchises,' said Solicitor General James Barta, arguing on behalf of the state. Barta said that these 'daily exchange(s) of data' are used by the plaintiffs to craft 'addictive content' based on user locations to earn millions. 'And yet, TikTok says Indiana courts can do nothing to hold it accountable for misleading and deceptive statements that induced Indiana parents to download this app for themselves or for their children, and that ultimately end up harming children and other users,' Barta concluded. Chief Justice Loretta Rush wondered if such a broad application of Indiana law might capture other apps and social media companies anytime a Hoosiers accepts a website's cookies or agrees to a user contract. 'Every one of those is going to be subject to (our jurisdiction) no matter where they're located or the product?' Rush asked. '… are we going to now have personal jurisdiction of any company that grabs and sells data in Indiana, no matter how small?' That concern appeared to resonate with some of Rush's fellow justices. 'The implications for things like free speech, for interstate commerce seemed, to me, to be just breathtaking,' said Goff. CONTACT US In response, Barta said the core of the case was about deception and misleading consumers and that the state 'has a significant interest in protecting its consumers, in having its courts interpret its laws.' Justice Derek Molter noted, however, that it was 'unusual' to claim a violation of Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act without the exchange of money. '… it is core to TikTok's business model to be able to monetize users' time and attention and this is, of course, not the only company that does this,' Barta said. '… it would be awfully odd to say that the legislature has been completely unaware of this, and yet has decided to do nothing about it with the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.' He said the law doesn't cover 'free' transactions, but does apply to an exchange of goods and services. He contends that Tiktok users exchange their data for entertainment. The state is seeking civil penalties and a jury trial as allowed under that law. Justices, led by Rush, indicated they would issue their ruling 'in due course.' This story has been corrected to say the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court judge. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Indianapolis Star
16-06-2025
- Health
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana AG Todd Rokita touts 'monumental victory' in Sackler family, Purdue opioid settlement
Indiana will receive up to $100 million to support addiction recovery programs as part of the largest settlement to date holding suppliers accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, according to Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita. In all, $7.4 billion will be dispersed to dozens of states and territories across the U.S. The Sackler family and Purdue Pharma were ordered to pay for "aggressive marketing of opioid products" that "fueled the worst drug crisis in U.S. history," Rokita said. Rokita called the settlement a "monumental victory" for Hoosiers. In Marion County, fentanyl kills more people than homicides and car crashes combined. Drug addiction in Indiana: What a grieving mother's story shows us about the fentanyl crisis in Indianapolis In 2020, Purdue Pharma admitted to paying doctors to encourage them to prescribe more opioids and impeding the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration's effort to fight the burgeoning epidemic. The settlement also permanently ends the Sackler family's control of Purdue Pharma, according to the Attorney General's office, and prohibits them from participating in the U.S. opioid industry. Indiana's funds will be released over the next 15 years. Most will be dispersed in the first three years. "This is about accountability and justice," said Rokita. A Marion County program that alerts recipients about bad drug batches or overdose spikes can be accessed by texting SOAR to 765-358-7627. If you or a loved one is struggling with mental health or substance abuse problems, contact the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration at 1-800-662-HELP (4357) for help.
