About 250 catalytic converters allegedly stolen from vehicles throughout Los Angeles County were recovered during a series of warrant operations by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department on March 10, 2021. (Credit: Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department)

Crime increased in Altadena in July, driven in part by a rise in thefts of catalytic converters, the commander of the Altadena Sheriff’s Station told the Altadena Town Council Tuesday night.

Capt. Ethan Marquez said crews appear to be entering the area, quickly stealing catalytic converters and leaving before law enforcement can respond. The devices can be removed from vehicles in as little as one or two minutes, he said.

“What we’re likely seeing is people come into the area, especially off the freeways, hit the area very quickly,” Marquez said. “What these teams and these crews will do is they’ll come into an area, hit it hard, and then leave and go hit another area.”

The pattern makes the crimes particularly difficult to investigate because crews can quickly move between jurisdictions, requiring coordination among multiple law enforcement agencies.

Marquez said the station is planning a catalytic converter etching event at a local dealership for late September or early October. The station expects to seek participation from the Pasadena Police Department and California Highway Patrol.

Etching a vehicle identification number or license plate number onto a catalytic converter can help investigators connect a recovered device to a specific vehicle.

Without identifying markings, Marquez said deputies can stop someone carrying multiple catalytic converters but may have difficulty proving the devices were stolen.

“If they don’t have a VIN number or a license plate number, we can’t tie that back to a car,” he said.

Marquez said thieves target catalytic converters because they contain valuable metals that can be resold or processed. He said stolen converters can fetch about $500 each on the black market.

The captain also used his report to urge residents to contact law enforcement directly when crimes occur rather than posting about them on social media or sending emails to deputies.

Marquez said the station continues to encounter cases in which people report active or recently occurring crimes through email, sometimes hours after they happened.

“If there’s a crime that’s happening, call 911,” he said. Residents can also contact the Altadena Sheriff’s Station at 626-798-1131.

Direct contact with dispatchers allows deputies to obtain information from victims and send personnel to the scene more quickly, Marquez said.

He also addressed reports of illegal dumping during the rebuilding of Altadena, including cases in which people have allegedly dumped construction debris into large bins paid for by homeowners.

Marquez said those incidents can be reported to the Sheriff’s Department, but the person paying for the bin must generally come forward as the victim so deputies can investigate.

The department’s July crime increase comes as Altadena continues rebuilding following the Eaton Fire, bringing increased construction activity, contractors and traffic into residential neighborhoods.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court announced Wednesday it is seeking residents interested in serving on the 23-member Civil Grand Jury for the 2027-28 term.

The court said it is seeking “civic-minded residents” interested in public service and government oversight who would investigate and review county, city and joint-powers agencies.

Jurors will receive training before conducting reviews that may extend over several weeks or months. The panel will prepare a final report containing its findings and recommendations at the conclusion of its one-year term, according to the court.

No prior jury service or investigative experience is required. Applicants must be U.S. citizens at least 18 years old, be able to read and speak English and have lived in Los Angeles County for at least one year, court officials said.

Civil grand jurors typically devote 30 to 40 hours per week to their duties and meet most days at 222 S. Hill St. in downtown Los Angeles. Jurors receive $80 per day and mileage reimbursement.

Applicants who complete interviews and are found qualified will become finalists eligible for service. In spring 2027, 23 people will be randomly selected from the group to serve on the Civil Grand Jury, the court said.

The one-year term will run from July 1, 2027, through June 30, 2028.

Applications are due Nov. 1. Additional information is available at grandjury.co.la.ca.us, by emailing grandjury@lacourt.ca.gov or by calling 213- 893-0411.

Nai Kinsbursky, left, and Maggie McDougall, right, type on stenotypes during a speed building class at the Downey Adult School in Los Angeles on June 29, 2026. Photo by Kayla Bartkowski, Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

In a blow to court reporter unions, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that courts must allow electronic recordings of hearings when a certified professional reporter is not available.

The justices found that a California law forbidding electronic recordings in most cases unfairly trampled on the rights of residents who could not afford to hire a certified reporter.

Reporters unions have been battling for years to ban or severely restrict recording in all but a few types of court cases. They argue that having certified professionals in a courtroom ensures accurate court transcripts that are vital to how the justice system functions.

But, as CalMatters reported last year, a massive shortage of reporters has resulted in millions of hearings without a written record of the proceedings. A transcript is usually needed to appeal a case. Recordings give parties in a legal dispute the option of later having a hearing transcribed by a certified professional.

In its unanimous ruling, the high court sided with advocacy groups representing domestic violence victims who called it a “two-tiered” system of justice because it can cost thousands of dollars to hire a private court reporter.

“The continued failure of the superior courts to provide indigent litigants with a means of obtaining an official verbatim record deprives them of ‘meaningful access to the judicial process,’” wrote Chief Justice Patricia Guerrero, citing previous rulings. “Indigent” is a legal term for someone who is unable to afford a private lawyer or court costs.

Court reporters’ unions argued in legal briefs filed with the Supreme Court that electronic recordings can be of poor quality and are not a replacement for a certified professional. Plus, the unions argued that court managers aren’t moving fast enough to hire more reporters.

The decision “should increase job opportunities for court reporters,” attorney Scott Kronland, who represented the court reporter organizations, said in a written statement. “Superior courts that have de facto hiring freezes for court reporters must lift those hiring freezes. … Court reporter schools are full and have waiting lists. Superior courts must hire those court reporters.”

But Guerrero wrote that whatever was causing the problem, “a verbatim record created by electronic recording is better than no record at all.”

Since 2023, the court reporter shortage has led to more than 3 million proceedings taking place with no written transcriptions, according to the Judicial Branch of California.

Guerrero noted the cases without reporters transcribing them include domestic violence and civil harassment restraining orders, child custody and support, marital relations, debt collection, employment and housing discrimination, official misconduct and probate conservatorship and guardianship.

In California, the most serious cases, such as felony criminal proceedings, get priority for a court reporter, leaving other hearings without a written record on busy days.

Almost all of California’s major civil cases go without one; more than half of all family law and probate cases have no reporter present, according to the judicial branch.

Guerrero wrote that the court reporter shortage forces those in the legal system to make difficult choices.

They can either pay for a private court reporter to transcribe their hearing for them, which can cost more than $3,000 per hearing, or delay their case for months, hoping for a court reporter to be available. Many more just opt to have their cases proceed without one.

Without a written record, the parties involved usually can’t appeal their cases if they believe a court erred.

Guerrero wrote that other states, federal courts and other types of cases in California allow for electronic recording. She wrote this “shows that electronic recording can be a useful alternative to court reporting.”

California allows recording in misdemeanor, infraction and civil cases where the plaintiff is seeking less than $35,000 in damages.

Several legal organizations and California constitutional law professors filed amicus briefs urging the court to allow electronic recordings. They noted potential cost savings for courts and stressed that effectively denying transcripts for lower-income Californians inhibited their civil liberties.

“The overriding principle should be to protect the people’s access to justice, which is a fundamental element of individual liberty,” wrote David Carrillo of the UC Berkeley School of Law and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group.

Union fights to keep recording ban

Unions representing court reporters that persuaded the Legislature to ban court recording years ago have since fought legislative efforts to expand use of the technology.

In 2023, the unions succeeded in killing a bill which would have allowed recording in all civil proceedings.

Last year, a union-sponsored bill from Democratic San Mateo Assemblymember Diane Papan would have allowed courts to switch on the devices for three years. But the Judicial Council of California complained the unions put so many “overly burdensome restrictions” into the bill that judges wouldn’t have authority to record very much. Papan’s bill died without a vote in the Senate last year. Her measure returned briefly this summer, but Papan pulled it before a vote.

Service Employees International Union, which represents many of the state’s court reporters, is one of the most powerful unions in California. SEIU and its affiliate unions have donated at least $16.6 million to politicians’ campaigns since 2016, according to the CalMatters Digital Democracy database.

Papan’s campaigns have received at least $70,500 from the union and its affiliates during that time. She didn’t return an interview request in response to the ruling.

Courts have boosted pay and hiring incentives to try to lure in more court reporters.

The median pay with benefits for a court reporter in California is more than $200,000, according to the judicial branch. Plus, by law, transcripts of hearings must be purchased from court reporters who get to keep the money.

But even with the job’s financial perks, courts are struggling to hire. For instance, Los Angeles Superior Court offers a $50,000 signing bonus and $25,000 finder’s fee for court employees who refer a court reporter.

The county reported it had 92 vacant court reporter positions, according to an online dashboard the superior court created to highlight the problem. That’s down from 106 vacancies last summer.

CalMatters.org is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.

[Shutterstock]

A preparedness flyer points households to Los Angeles County resources as Altadena rebuilds near the Sierra Madre fault zone

The Altadena Sheriff’s Station is asking residents to build an earthquake plan before the next quake, issuing a preparedness flyer that lays out five basic steps for households and directs people to Los Angeles County’s readiness resources.

The flyer, headed “Altadena, Let’s Be Ready,” urges residents to make an emergency plan, assemble a supply kit with water, food, medications and other essentials, secure heavy items and identify safe spots in each room, sign up for emergency alerts, and check on neighbors — particularly seniors and people with access and functional needs. According to the flyer, residents should “drop, cover and hold on” during strong shaking and can find guides, checklists and family tips at the county’s earthquake page, ready.lacounty.gov/earthquakes.

The station’s message aligns with broader guidance from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. In a June 25 statement, the department reminded residents across the county that earthquakes can strike without warning and pointed them to the county’s preparedness resources at ready.lacounty.gov.

The Altadena Sheriff’s Station, at 780 East Altadena Drive, is the first-responder law enforcement agency for unincorporated Altadena and nearby areas, including the Eaton Canyon area of the Angeles National Forest and parts of northeast Pasadena.

Altadena lies near the Sierra Madre fault zone, which the Southern California Earthquake Data Center at Caltech lists as capable of producing quakes in the magnitude 6.0 to 7.0 range; the data center names Altadena among the communities near the zone. The community is also still rebuilding from the January 2025 Eaton Fire, which destroyed thousands of structures.

Residents looking to practice can take part in the next Great California ShakeOut, scheduled statewide for Oct. 15, 2026, at 10:15 a.m., when participants drop, cover and hold on together. Registration and drill materials are available at shakeout.org.

Los Angeles County’s full earthquake-preparedness guidance is posted at ready.lacounty.gov/earthquakes.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has settled a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice alleging the agency was deliberately delaying law-abiding Californians from exercising their constitutional right to carry concealed handguns in public for self-defense.

The DOJ sued the department last year, claiming eligible citizens were having extreme difficulty obtaining Concealed Carry Weapons permits from the sheriff’s department, not through outright refusal, “but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay.”

Quoting data provided by the sheriff’s department about more than 8,000 concealed carry permit applications and renewal applications received between January 2024 and March 2025, the DOJ claimed in the lawsuit that it took an average of nearly a year for the LASD to schedule interviews to approve or advance the applications.

As a result, the department issued only two CCW permits during the period, according to the DOJ.

“The Justice Department supports our law enforcement partners,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division said in a statement Thursday announcing the settlement. “The sheriff acknowledged the problem and devoted substantial additional resources, including new processing software and additional personnel, to cutting waiting times dramatically. We applaud their efforts and are happy to be able to bring this litigation to a successful conclusion.”

The DOJ said in its statement that “the Second Amendment requires law enforcement to have objective standards for issuing carry permits and to issue those permits without imposing lengthy delays on applicants.”

The sheriff’s department last year disputed the severity of delays in permit processing.

“Despite significant staffing shortages, we have successfully approved more than 19,000 CCW applications since 2020,” the department contended last year. “Year to date in 2025, we have issued more than 5,000 CCW permits, including 2,722 new applications.”

At the start of the DOJ probe, according to the LASD, federal investigators requested data from various stages of the CCW application process, and at the time the sheriff’s department was in the early stages of transitioning from a manual, paper-based CCW tracking system to a new online platform that streamlines application processing.

The upgrade, implemented in May 2023, was part of broader efforts to improve efficiency, LASD officials said.

A judge Thursday blocked the Trump administration’s decision to suspend federal funding to the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority over allegations of fraud and widespread mismanagement, finding that the abrupt loss of cash would jeopardize housing and services for more than 11,000 people across the region.

U.S. District Judge David Carter’s partial preliminary injunction against the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development allows LAHSA access to federal homelessness funding for fiscal year 2026.

The ruling matters for Pasadena through shared regional outreach networks (LA-HOP, LAHSA Winter Shelter Program), County Measure A funding flows to Pasadena’s contracted providers (Union Station Homeless Services, Friends In Deed), and the broader precedent it sets for HUD’s scrutiny of local homeless authorities nationwide, which could affect Pasadena’s own upcoming federal grant competitiveness.

Also at stake is nearly $241 million already earmarked for the Los Angeles region by Congress, as well as immediate future funding for homelessness in the next fiscal year.

“This has great consequences for the Los Angeles region and impacts the region’s ability to compete with other cities across the country for limited homelessness funding nationwide,” Carter wrote in his order issued Thursday in Los Angeles federal court.

Supervisor Kathryn Barger applauded the ruling.

“Judge Carter’s ruling is fair, measured, and recognizes two realities that must be addressed simultaneously,” she said in a statement. “First, we cannot abruptly disrupt funding that people currently experiencing homelessness depend on to remain housed and connected to critical services. Second, meaningful reform of our region’s homeless services system cannot be delayed.”

The injunction “strikes an appropriate balance by preserving short- term stability, respecting local coordination, and establishing a clear path toward accountability and meaningful structural change,” Barger said, adding that while change is necessary, “it must be implemented in a way that does not pull the rug out from under vulnerable individuals who depend on these services today.”

Citing concerns of fraud and fiscal mismanagement, HUD stripped the authority of LAHSA on June 11 to apply for funding on behalf of the Los Angeles Continuum of Care, “flying in the face of Congressional mandates,” Carter wrote, calling the decision “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

The LA CoC coordinates housing and services to prevent and end homelessness across Los Angeles County.

The sudden announcement by HUD was described in a recent court hearing as dropping a “bomb into the region.”

Carter determined that the federal funding relied on by the LA CoC supports 140 projects helping 89 veterans, 1,030 families, 1,923 children, 823 transition-age youth, 1,627 seniors, and 901 individuals impacted by intimate partner violence.

The judge also stated that HUD has been “complicit” in the crisis facing LAHSA and has been on notice “of the very accusations it now brings against LAHSA concerning fraud and fiscal mismanagement. For decades, LAHSA and HUD have been in a joint partnership in failure,” according to Carter.

LAHSA is a joint powers authority formed in 1993 through an agreement between the city and county of Los Angeles. Half of the governing board of LAHSA is appointed by the mayor of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles City Council. The other half of LAHSA’s governing board is appointed by members of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.

“This has, at times, enabled a cycle of blame-shifting,” according to the ruling. “When data inconsistencies or compliance issues arise, the City points to LAHSA. In turn, LAHSA attributes its problems to a lack of information or cooperation from the City.”

This relationship “has fostered a system in which responsibility is routinely deflected, allowing both entities to evade accountability, with no single party willing to take responsibility,” the court wrote.

“HUD has also been complicit in this blame-shifting cycle,” Carter said, adding that in so doing, “all of these entities have effectively abdicated governance.”

In a statement released late Thursday, LAHSA said the ruling “protects our community’s ability to secure funding for housing and services that save lives.”

Stephanie Graves, new chair of the LAHSA Commission, said the court’s decision “ensures the funds awarded to Los Angeles for the 2025 grant cycle will flow to providers, and that decisions for the 2026 (Notice of Funding Opportunity) will be made according to priorities set here, by the people who know our communities best.”

She added that the court has called for transparency and accountability, “and we intend to deliver both. Every dollar will be tracked, accounted for and put to work housing our neighbors. Los Angeles will make the most of this moment — and of every dollar entrusted to us.”

HUD Secretary Scott Turner said in a statement in June that HUD had “uncovered evidence of LAHSA’s false statements and its irresponsible actions and failures,” including a lack of financial management and lack of safeguards against conflicts of interest.

The LA CoC has received nearly $1 billion in taxpayer dollars over the last five years. Despite federal assistance, the Los Angeles region remains the epicenter of the nation’s “drug-fueled” homeless crisis, according to Turner.

HUD cited prior financial reviews despite extensive corrective actions already undertaken by the county-city homeless agency, and ongoing efforts to modernize its financial systems and strengthen internal controls, according to LAHSA officials.

Despite the allegations that Los Angeles has failed to reduce homelessness, recent data showed significant progress.

In June, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced California achieved the largest reduction in unsheltered homelessness in the nation last year, and saw the largest decline in unsheltered homelessness since 2009, citing HUD’s data.

Los Angeles experienced a 10.3% drop in unsheltered homelessness, with the largest regional drop nationwide, according to HUD’s data.

In a statement, Jewish Family Service LA praised the judge’s ruling.

“We are relieved and encouraged to see Judge Carter affirm the importance of this funding for the Angelenos in need that we serve,” JFSLA CEO Eli Veitzer said. “However, given the ongoing court battle, it does not guarantee quick resolution to the funding crisis affecting the 12 women and 25 children who fled domestic violence and now rely on Jewish Family Service LA’s Hope Transitional Shelter for their safety and survival.”

Veitzer said the organization’s annual $300,000 LAHSA contract, which expired April 1, covers half of the shelter’s operating budget.

“JFSLA has tapped its emergency contingency funds to keep services running, but that isn’t sustainable,” Veitzer said. “This ruling is certainly a huge step in the right direction, but until the funding resumes, our ability to continue serving survivors of domestic violence in the future remains in question, and our shelter residents remain at risk.”

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducting field operations [Photo U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement]

Residents, workers and advocacy groups sued the DHS in July 2025, alleging unconstitutional stop and detention practices by agents tied to arbitrary enforcement quotas. An amended complaint filed in Los Angeles federal court earlier this year adds new claims of violations of equal protection and use of unreasonable tactics by DHS agents.

Government attorneys then asked the court to immediately toss the case, arguing that accusations in the updated version of the complaint are not enough to support plaintiffs’ legal claims.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Maame Frimpong, who is overseeing the case, determined in a written ruling that “the accusations are enough for this case to go forward at this time,” and denied the DHS’ bid to have the lawsuit thrown out.

The judge emphasized that at this stage in proceedings she has made no finding on the truth of the allegations, an issue that would be determined later.

Asked for a response, a DHS spokesman did not comment on the judge’s ruling, but said the media was focusing on the wrong issues.

“Our agents are focused on protecting the American people — not entertaining performative outrage,” according to the statement. “Where is the media’s outrage for Angel families who lost a loved one to illegal alien crime?”

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs argued the government is intentionally discriminating against Latino communities in California, choosing whom to stop and which locations to raid based on race, and treating Latino people differently because of their apparent ethnicity.

They also argued that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol were using highly intrusive tactics in carrying out the raids — such as handcuffing, confinement, moving people to a secondary location, and prolonged detention. Agents, the plaintiffs contend, were quick to both show and use force, often arriving with weapons drawn and using force even when subjects are already compliant. Such tactics are unreasonable and turn encounters into unlawful arrests, the plaintiffs allege.

When the complaint was filed last year, Frimpong issued a temporary restraining order limiting certain enforcement actions, but in August 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s request to stay that order while litigation proceeds, allowing the challenged practices to continue.

Trump administration officials have previously defended the stepped-up enforcement on a number of levels, saying the crackdown is necessary to maintain the rule of law, to capture violent criminals in the country illegally, and to reverse the flood of people who poured over the U.S. Mexico border during the Biden administration.

However, Eva Bitran, the ACLU Foundation of Southern California’s immigrants’ rights director, has said the stops are “discriminatory in design and execution. ICE and Border Patrol’s racist agenda extends from DHS leadership down to rank-and-file officers who deliberately target Latino community members — often with great force — because of their race. Our community suffers the consequences of this unconstitutional conduct.”

The suit was brought by five individual Latino workers and three membership organizations — the Los Angeles Worker Center Network, United Farm Workers, and the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights — as well as Immigrant Defenders Law Center, a legal services provider.

Frimpong will hold a hearing Thursday in downtown Los Angeles on a request from plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction to halt the Trump administration’s alleged campaign of warrantless arrests against people appearing “Latino, low-income or working-class.”

The judge recently held the DHS in contempt for allegedly slow-rolling an order to create digital copies of communications from personal cell phones used by immigration agents during operations.

Andrew and Daniel Escarzaga are due in Department D on Wednesday morning, where a preliminary hearing date is scheduled to be set in their felony case

Eight days after investigators named the spark that burned Altadena, a courtroom on East Walnut Street will take up one of the crimes that followed it.

Andrew Escarzaga, 27, and Daniel Escarzaga, 29, both of Chino, are scheduled to appear at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday in Department D of the Pasadena Courthouse. 

Each man is charged with a single felony count of contracting without a license during a natural disaster. Unlicensed contracting is ordinarily a misdemeanor in California. It becomes a felony when the work involves structures damaged or destroyed by a disaster for which the governor has proclaimed a state of emergency or the president has declared an emergency or major disaster. Gov. Gavin Newsom proclaimed an emergency for Los Angeles County on Jan. 7, 2025, the day the Eaton Fire started. Conviction carries up to three years in state prison and a $10,000 fine.

The two accused men are among five charged in one Altadena operation. The District Attorney’s Consumer Protection Division filed the charges Dec. 4, 2025, and the office said in a Dec. 11, 2025, news release that they allegedly contracted without a license in the fire zone on Oct. 8, 2025.

The charges are allegations, and both men are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

Prosecutors did release those details for the three others charged. Edgar Geovanni Lopez Revolorio, 43, of Arleta; Guillermo Ramirez, 55, of Pomona; and Melvin Hairon Mejia Ordonez, 42, of Los Angeles each pleaded not guilty in December 2025 and were released on their own recognizance, the office said.

The cases came out of an undercover operation the District Attorney’s Bureau of Investigation ran with the California Contractors State License Board.

Announcing the charges beside Supervisor Kathryn Barger at a fire-destroyed Altadena property, District Attorney Nathan J. Hochman said his office was “cracking down on criminal contractors who prey on residents.” Barger, whose Fifth District includes unincorporated Altadena, put it in dollars. “It often costs more in the long run,” she said of hiring unlicensed contractors, according to Tribune News Service.

[photo credit: PUSD]

Department marks August’s Back to School Safety Month 10 days before Pasadena Unified classes resume

The Pasadena Police Department is asking all drivers to make safety a top priority in school zones during August’s Back to School Safety Month, in a reminder issued Friday, Aug. 7, as summer winds down and students prepare to return to class.

The appeal lands 10 days before Pasadena Unified School District students begin the 2026-2027 school year on Monday, Aug. 17, when activity around campuses across the city picks up sharply. The department put its message in six words: “A+ Driving Starts with Slowing Down.”

“This time of year brings increased activity around schools and it’s crucial to be mindful behind the wheel,” Pasadena Police Department Lieutenant Mathew Campeau said in a department news release. “Every driver plays a role in keeping children safe by slowing down and paying close attention in and around school zones. It is all our responsibility to ensure children get to and from school safely.”

The Pasadena Police Department is urging drivers to slow down and follow the speed limit, follow each school’s own drop-off and pickup procedures, stop for school buses and watch for children rushing to catch the bus or stepping off it, and yield to people walking at every crosswalk — marked or not.

Parents whose children walk or bike to school should teach them to look both ways before crossing, use sidewalks where they exist and cross at corners when there is no marked crosswalk, the Pasadena Police Department said.

State law is unambiguous about stopped buses. Drivers behind a school bus displaying a stop sign and flashing red lights must stop so students can safely get on and off, and must stay stopped as long as the red lights are on. On a two-lane road with no median or center turn lane, traffic in both directions must stop.

Back to School Safety Month is observed statewide in August and is promoted through the California Office of Traffic Safety’s Go Safely campaign, which publishes traffic safety information at gosafelyca.org.

Pasadena Unified’s first day of instruction is Aug. 17. Most teachers report to campuses beginning Aug. 12.

Enrique Real, held since September 2020, is due back in Department F for another pretrial hearing

Enrique Antonio Real is due in a Pasadena courtroom at 8:30 a.m., where a case that began in a drugstore parking lot nearly six years ago will move one more step without reaching a jury.

Real, of Baldwin Park, faces one count of murder in the death of Christopher Flores, a 30-year-old Altadena resident. The hearing is set for Department F of the Pasadena Courthouse. Real was 19 the night Flores died, and he has been in custody since.

Pasadena police were called to the 100 block of East Orange Grove Boulevard at approximately 8:14 p.m. on Friday, Sept. 11, 2020, after multiple callers reported a stabbing victim in the CVS parking lot. The store sits at 20 East Orange Grove Boulevard, at the intersection with Fair Oaks Avenue.

Officers found Flores on the ground, bleeding heavily. He was taken to a hospital and died there.

Witnesses pointed officers toward an alley where a man had been seen running. Officers located Real a short distance from the scene and took him into custody without incident.

A preliminary investigation determined that Flores was walking north through the parking lot with Real alongside him, moving in the same direction, when Real stabbed him several times.

“The investigation revealed the victim and suspect knew each other, however, the motive for the stabbing of victim Flores requires further follow up by detectives,” Lt. Jesse Carrillo of the Pasadena Police Department said in a written statement in September 2020.

Detectives presented the case to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office on Wednesday, Sept. 16, 2020. Prosecutors filed the murder count that same day. Bail was set at $2,020,000.

Real is presumed innocent unless and until he is convicted.

The proceeding is open to the public. Visitors pass through security screening at the entrance and should allow extra time. The courthouse provides wheelchair access and interpretation in more than 90 languages.

The pharmacy at Orange Grove and Fair Oaks opens at 7:00 a.m. and closes at 11:00 p.m. The lot fills and empties, fills and empties. The case it produced has not yet reached a jury.

NEED TO KNOW

Event: Pretrial hearing in the murder case against Enrique Antonio Real. Time: 8:30 a.m. Cost: No admission charge; criminal proceedings are open to the public, and attendance requires no ticket or advance registration. All visitors pass through security screening, so arrive early. Where: Department F, Pasadena Courthouse, 300 East Walnut Street, Pasadena, CA 91101. Parking: For a fee in the structure at the southeast corner of Marengo Avenue and Walnut Street, entrance at 240 Ramona Street; ceiling clearance is 6 feet, 6 inches, so large trucks and sport utility vehicles may not fit, and additional pay lots operate adjacent to the courthouse. For more, call (626) 396-3300 or visit the Pasadena Courthouse page.

Link: Case docket lookup — https://www.lacourt.org/criminalcasesummary/ui/