Puka Nacua confronted a notable civil lawsuit involving allegations of hate speech and physical assault during a New Year’s Eve celebration in Los Angeles. Madison Atiabi filed the legal action in Los Angeles Superior Court earlier this week. This legal filing details a series of events at a dinner in Century City where the professional athlete allegedly targeted the plaintiff with religious slurs. The complaint was drawing league attention on March 26, 2026, as the Rams assessed the legal risk. Atiabi claims the Los Angeles Rams wide receiver shouted an antisemitic phrase and subsequently bit her on the shoulder. She further alleges that the physical altercation extended to her companion during the same evening. Specific marks were reportedly left on the victim's skin as a result of the incident.
Attorney Joseph Kar represents Atiabi in the litigation. Kar asserted that his client was emotionally distressed by the verbal vitriol Nacua allegedly directed toward her. The suit cites several causes of action including gender violence, negligence, and assault and battery. Atiabi, who is Jewish, claims she felt immediate discomfort when Nacua allegedly shouted an explicit insult against Jewish people. Legal documents suggest the encounter moved from a dining setting into a transport vehicle later that night. It was inside this van that the alleged biting occurred. Atiabi describes the sensation as forceful enough to leave distinct impressions on her body.
One particular detail in the complaint involves a second victim. Atiabi claims that Nacua also bit her friend on the thumb. The force of this action reportedly caused the individual to scream in acute pain. Witnesses at the scene have offered conflicting accounts of the intensity of the physical contact. Kar maintains that the combination of bigoted language and physical aggression forms a pattern of behavior that justifies real civil damages. The lawsuit does not specify a precise dollar amount but seeks compensation for emotional distress and physical injury.
Madison Atiabi Files Civil Complaint in Los Angeles
Court records indicate the night began as a standard celebratory dinner among acquaintances. Atiabi alleges the atmosphere shifted when Nacua made a statement expressing hatred toward the Jewish community. She claims the remark was unprovoked and created a hostile environment. Many details regarding the specific sequence of events remain under scrutiny by legal investigators. That said, the physical evidence of the biting is still a central foundation of the plaintiff's argument. Photos of the alleged injuries were reportedly included in the initial filing to substantiate the claims of assault. Atiabi is seeking a jury trial to resolve the matter.
Meanwhile, the legal team for the wide receiver has organized an aggressive defense. Levi McCathern, the lead attorney for Nacua, has issued a detailed denial of every allegation. McCathern argues that the claims lack factual merit and are designed to exploit his client's high profile. He maintains that Nacua did not utter any antisemitic slurs during the evening in question. The defense emphasizes that multiple people present at the dinner can testify to the athlete's conduct. For one, the defense team has identified several witnesses who they claim were sober and attentive throughout the night. These individuals reportedly contradict the version of events provided by Atiabi and Kar.
McCathern characterized the physical contact described in the lawsuit as harmless interaction between friends. He used the term 'horseplay' to describe the biting incidents. In his view, the contact did not rise to the level of assault or battery. The defense also noted that any marks left on the skin were temporary and did not require medical intervention. To that end, McCathern suggests the lawsuit is a tactical move for financial gain. He has publicly criticized the timing and nature of the filing. He believes the evidence will ultimately exonerate his client of any malicious intent or hateful speech.
"The whole claim is nothing more than a shakedown attempt."
Levi McCathern issued this statement to clarify that the defense's view focuses on the perceived lack of evidence regarding hate speech. He insists that the biting was a minor physical jest common among the group. But the presence of a second bite victim complicates the story of a singular harmless moment. And yet, the defense remains firm that no racial or religious animosity motivated any part of the evening. They intend to produce testimony that characterizes Nacua as a peaceful individual who was simply enjoying a holiday celebration. The outcome of the case hinges on whether the jury believes the biting was a playful gesture or a violent act.
Puka Nacua Legal Team Denies Hate Speech Claims
Records from the night show the group traveled together in a van after leaving the restaurant. It is during this transit that the secondary biting incident involving the friend's thumb allegedly took place. Atiabi maintains that the pain was obvious and the aggression was undeniable. So, the legal strategy for the plaintiff will likely focus on the cumulative effect of the night's events. The combination of the alleged slur and the double biting provides a framework for the gender violence claim. Kar argues that the behavior displays a lack of respect for the physical boundaries of the women present. The defense must now work to dismantle this characterization of Nacua's personality.
Shifting focus, the context of Nacua's past public statements has returned to the forefront of the discussion. In December, the receiver participated in a YouTube stream with Adin Ross. During that broadcast, Nacua performed a hand rubbing gesture that many viewers identified as an antisemitic trope. The movement was suggested by Ross, who is Jewish, but the public reaction was swift. Nacua issued a formal apology shortly after the stream concluded. In that statement, he claimed he was unaware of the historical connotations of the gesture and expressed his opposition to all forms of bigotry. He used a graphic from a known anti-hate organization to strengthen his message of regret.
But the current lawsuit alleges that Nacua's behavior on New Year's Eve proves the apology was insincere. Atiabi claims the verbal slur she heard was a direct expression of the same sentiment he previously disavowed. In fact, the lawsuit explicitly mentions the YouTube incident as evidence of a recurring theme in the athlete's conduct. The plaintiff's legal team intends to use the video as a tool to establish Nacua's state of mind regarding the Jewish community. This strategy aims to bridge the gap between a digital emote and a physical confrontation. Whether the court allows the previous incident to be admitted as evidence is still a point of contention.
Legal Risk for Team and Player
The lawsuit now sits in a space where civil procedure, locker-room discipline and public reputation overlap. The Rams can wait for facts to develop, but the case will keep pressure on the team as long as the allegations remain active.
Because the filing includes both alleged speech and alleged physical contact, the dispute is unlikely to remain a narrow personal-injury matter. Each side will try to define the night before a jury ever sees the evidence.
The league's response may stay limited while the case is civil, but sponsor and locker-room pressure can move faster than court calendars. That gap is where reputational damage often forms.