Palisades Fire ‘was not an accident’ according to civil lawsuit
In a sweeping civil complaint filed by the City of Malibu against Los Angeles and a half a dozen agencies, accusing them of “unlawful conduct” causing the Palisades Fire to ignite and spread into Malibu, the city is trying to recoup losses that affect “the long-term fiscal implications for Malibu and its taxpayers.”
While the 66-page complaint does not list a specific dollar amount the city is seeking in damages, it’s not uncommon to seek unspecified damages at the outset of a lawsuit until precise figures are determined once discovery is complete. No doubt Malibu suffered enormous losses caused by the deadly blaze that took six lives in Malibu and originated outside its borders.
Quoted from the complaint: “The Palisades Fire turned swaths of beloved neighborhoods and local establishments of Malibu to ash and rubble, and catastrophically impacted the local community beyond it. The true toll from the Palisades Fire is incalculable and can never be fully compensated, but estimates put the economic loss as high as $250 billion dollars.”
Named in the complaint are the State of California, California Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Los Angeles and its Department of Water and Power, Los Angeles County, Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
The complaint states, “Malibu’s entire character changed on January 7, 2025” when more than 700 homes were destroyed along with dozens of businesses leaving Malibu “devoid of the vibrant community it once enjoyed.” It further states, “the City of Malibu is still reeling from the destruction it left in its wake: a hollowed out community, burned and destroyed buildings and homes, a shrinking tax base, emotionally and physically scarred citizens, and untold environmental damage.”
And the complaint states the Palisades Fire “was not an accident,” rather the proximate result of unlawful conduct on state-owned land where the fire ignited and where “the State elevated rare plants over human lives in failing to inspect and address the dangerous burn scar from the Lachman Fire that ignited just days before on its own land — its smoldering embers remaining clearly visible to anyone who cared to look.”
The LADWP is accused in the suit of leaving reservoirs empty for over a year, failing to maintain essential firefighting infrastructure, and adopting a cost-saving approach that shifted risk onto surrounding communities.
“The Palisades Fire devastated large portions of the City of Malibu. According to then-Mayor Doug Stewart, one-third of Malibu was wiped out by January 8, 2025, dislocating a large portion of the city and depleting its community and tax base,” the complaint said. “This devastation included large portions of neighborhoods like Big Rock, La Costa, and Carbon Beach, among others. It damaged or destroyed over 1,500 structures along the eastern edge of Malibu.”
In addition, analysis in the suit contends nearly half of all jobs in Malibu were located at properties that were completelydestroyed. And even for local businesses that avoided direct impact, prolonged closure of Pacific Coast Highway adversely impacted their revenue and employees.
“The City of Malibu continues to suffer broad economic losses tied to the displacement of approximately 1,400 residents, resulting in annual household spending losses, visitor spending losses due to reduced tourism activity and a depleted tax base as a result of the displacement of residents and businesses,” according to the statement. “Power outages and school closures also impacted the Malibu area, with many residents forced to relocate to enroll their children in other schools.”
Along with assigning blame to California State Parks for allowing “the dangerous condition of the Lachman Fire” to rekindle due to unchecked smoldering embers, the lawsuit takes sharp aim at the MRCA, a frequent foe of Malibu residents. In addressing its culpability, the lawsuit claims “overgrown brush on MRCA-managed vacant lots caught fire and caused damage to the City of Malibu” as well as augmenting the fire’s overall spread and intensity. And the complaint alleges MRCA had “notice of this dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected against it and that Plaintiff was harmed and that the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiff’s harm.”
The lengthy complaint then details “additional property damage to real and personal property; loss of and/or damage to natural resources, open space, wildlife, environmental assets, parks, trails, and other lands; and loss of and/or damage to infrastructure, facilities, and/or buildings, including but not limited to, roads, sidewalks, storm water systems, and sewer systems,” in addition to the severe smoke and roof damage at City Hall.
The Malibu Times reached out for comment to the lead attorney listed on the complaint filed by the firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan but did not receive a response by press time.
