The City of Malibu filed a civil lawsuit this week in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the State of California, the City of Los Angeles and several other government entities, alleging a cascade of failures by public agencies allowed the Palisades Fire to ignite and spread, devastating the coastal community and leaving taxpayers to absorb tens of millions of dollars in losses.
The complaint, filed Feb. 17, names the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the County of Los Angeles, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as defendants. It asserts six causes of action including dangerous conditions of public property, public nuisance and inverse condemnation.
The lawsuit stems from the Jan. 7, 2025, fire that the complaint describes as the foreseeable result of unlawful conduct by multiple government agencies, not an accident or act of God. The fire burned approximately 23,707 acres, destroyed at least 6,833 structures, killed a dozen people and took 44 days to fully contain.
In Malibu alone, according to the complaint, the fire destroyed roughly 700 homes and damaged or destroyed approximately 11% of all structures in the city, including large portions of the Big Rock, La Costa and Carbon Beach neighborhoods. Well-known local businesses — among them Moonshadows, The Reel Inn, Cholada Thai and Rosenthal Wine Bar — were burned to the ground. The complaint estimates economic losses from the fire at as much as $250 billion countywide.
At the heart of the lawsuit’s claims against the state is what Malibu’s attorneys describe as a catastrophic failure to monitor a brush fire that burned just six days before the Palisades Fire.
On Jan. 1, 2025, the Lachman Fire ignited near Skull Rock on the Temescal Ridge Trail in Topanga State Park. LAFD declared the fire fully contained by 4:48 a.m. that morning. But according to the complaint, photos and drone footage taken hours later showed smoke still rising from the burn scar, evidence the complaint alleges was visible to at least one State Parks ranger on the scene.
The complaint alleges that State Parks employees, in depositions, admitted they observed evidence of smoldering on Jan. 1 but did not walk the perimeter of the burn scar or report their observations. It further alleges that a state environmental scientist asked LAFD crews to replace dry vegetation that had been cut around the fire, potentially interfering with mop-up efforts.
“Modified mop up for ground fuels should be utilized where possible,” the complaint quotes from the park’s Wildfire Management Plan — a policy the suit characterizes as having prioritized rare plant protection over public safety.
According to that complaint, the Palisades Fire was caused by an ember from the Lachman Fire that continued to smolder within root structures before being reignited by the predicted high winds on Jan. 7. The ATF identified the Palisades Fire’s origin point as squarely on state-owned land within Topanga State Park.
The complaint pays special attention to the LADWP’s management of the region’s water supply and electrical infrastructure in the months and years before the fire.
The Santa Ynez Reservoir, built in the early 1970s specifically to increase fire protection in the Pacific Palisades, had been drained in February 2024 after a property manager discovered a tear in its cover. The complaint alleges LADWP delayed repairs for nearly a year. According to the complaint, not signing a contract until November 2024 (at a cost of $130,000) left the reservoir empty when the Palisades Fire broke out. The Pacific Palisades Reservoir had also been drained the prior summer.
As a result, firefighters were left relying on three tanks holding one million gallons each — 114 million fewer gallons than if the full system had been operational, according to the complaint. By the evening of Jan. 7, hydrants were running dry. By Jan. 8, LAFD Chief Kristin Crowley acknowledged firefighters had stopped using hydrants altogether.
The complaint also alleges LADWP knowingly left more than 1,300 fire hydrants in need of maintenance or repair, including some near the Palisades Fire’s origin, and that 24% of hydrants within the fire’s ultimate perimeter had outdated 2.5-inch outlets, below the modern standard for firefighting capacity.
On the electrical side, the complaint alleges LADWP made a deliberate policy decision not to implement preemptive power shutoffs during high wind events, even as the National Weather Service issued a rare “Particularly Dangerous Situation” Red Flag Warning days before the fire. The complaint further alleges LADWP initially misled the public about whether a downed power line near the fire’s origin had been energized at the time of ignition, a misstatement its own counsel later corrected in a letter buried in a footnote, acknowledging the line was in fact energized.
The complaint also alleges the County of Los Angeles, through its Waterworks District 29, failed to adequately prepare its water infrastructure in Malibu, resulting in melted electrical connections between generators and pumps. The complaint says those connections were deliberately designed with above-ground plastic conduits vulnerable to heat. That failure contributed to low or no water pressure at fire hydrants in the Big Rock neighborhood during the fire.
The MRCA and SMMC are accused of failing to clear overgrown brush from vacant lots in Malibu, including parcels along Pacific Coast Highway and Big Rock Drive, in violation of county fire code brush clearance requirements. The complaint alleges residents had complained about the neglected lots in the months and years before the fire.
Malibu’s City Hall sustained smoke and roof damage. The city suffered tens of millions of dollars in damage to roads, sewers and other infrastructure in neighborhoods including Big Rock, Carbon Canyon and Rambla Vista. The complaint also seeks recovery for lost tax revenues, including property, sales and transient occupancy taxes, as well as emergency response costs, environmental restoration expenses and economic losses tied to the displacement of approximately 1,400 residents.
Mayor Bruce Silverstein, in a statement accompanying the city’s announcement of the filing, said the decision to sue was not made lightly but reflected the city’s obligation to protect its residents and taxpayers.
The complaint was filed by Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, on behalf of the City of Malibu. No trial date has been set.
editor@smdp.com