Warehouse fire litigation grows slowly as attorneys sort out complex liability

Nearly a month after a massive fire at a Lineage cold-storage warehouse in Boyle Heights forced thousands of residents indoors, disrupted businesses and prompted state and local emergency declarations, civil litigation has emerged more slowly than after many recent California mass-tort disasters.

Three proposed class actions have been filed since the June 17 fire, a relatively modest number for an incident that affected thousands of residents. Attorneys representing potential plaintiffs say the deliberate pace reflects an unusually complicated investigation into both liability and damages.

Unlike many wildfire cases, where a single utility or property owner quickly emerges as the primary defendant, lawyers say the Lineage fire involves multiple entities--including the warehouse operator, building owner, rooftop solar owner and contractors working on the facility when the fire began--making early case development more complex.

The first of the three class actions was filed June 22, when attorneys with Ahdoot & Wolfson PC in Burbank brought a proposed federal class action on behalf of Boyle Heights resident Ruben Hernandez against Lineage Inc., Lineage Logistics Holdings LLC and Bay Grove Capital LLC. The complaint alleges the fire released toxic smoke and hazardous substances that forced thousands of nearby residents to shelter in place and interfered with the use and enjoyment of their homes. Hernandez v. Lineage, Inc., et al., 26STCV19775 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed June 22, 2026).

The next day, Los Angeles firm Trujillo & Winnick LLP filed a proposed class action on behalf of Ortegati Inc. naming Lineage Logistics LLC, Chill Build Los Angeles I LLC, Los Palos Street Operating LLC, Altus Power Inc. and Pearce Services LLC. The complaint alleges contractors were performing energized testing on the rooftop solar array when the fire ignited and contends defendants failed to adequately address known hazards after a rooftop fire at the facility in 2024. Ortegati, Inc. v. Lineage Logistics, LLC, et al., 26STCV19901 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed June 23, 2026).

A third proposed class action followed on July 7 in federal court. Filed by McCune Law Group and co-counsel, the complaint seeks relief on behalf of residents and businesses alleging personal injuries, property impacts and business losses arising from the fire. It names Lineage Logistics Holdings LLC, Chill Build Los Angeles I LLC, Los Palos Street Operating LLC and Pearce Services LLC as defendants. Meraz, et al., v. Lineage Logistics Holdings, LLC, et al., 2:26-cv-07375 (C.D. Cal., filed July 7, 2026).

McCune founder Richard D. McCune of Ontario said there was nothing unusual about waiting several weeks before filing.

"There's nothing strategic about it," McCune said in a phone interview on Monday. "A couple clients have contacted us, and we've looked into it and felt like it was meritorious." He said discovery ultimately will determine "who did what and when and why."

Other attorneys say the litigation has developed more slowly because the underlying claims differ from those arising after catastrophic wildfires.

Todd B. Becker, who said his firm, Becker Law Group, is collaborating with ACTS Law and Keosian Law LLP on forthcoming claims, said many potential plaintiffs are alleging smoke exposure, respiratory injuries and business interruption rather than total property losses.

"I think this case might be a little more nuanced," Becker said via phone on Monday. "It's probably more complicated than ... the Eaton Fire." He said attorneys also are still determining whether responsibility ultimately lies with the warehouse operator, the rooftop solar owner, contractors or other entities.

Nareg Kitsinian, who said his firm represents roughly 200 residents and business owners and counting, said the relatively small number of filed complaints should not be mistaken for a lack of potential plaintiffs.

"The gap between the number of people affected and the number of complaints on file is not about a shortage of clients or merit," Kitsinian said in an email on Friday. "It reflects diligence." He said lawyers are waiting for additional environmental testing, cause-and-origin findings and possible coordination before filing more cases.

Kitsinian also said determining responsibility will require sorting through numerous parties with potentially overlapping roles.

"There are several potential defendants already pointing at one another, from the warehouse operator to the building owner to the owner of the rooftop solar array and its testing contractor, so sorting out responsibility takes time," he said.

Plaintiffs' attorney Cyrus L. Batchan of Beverly Hills, who said his firm is investigating potential claims, echoed that assessment, saying responsible attorneys are focused first on gathering facts rather than rushing into court.

"The responsible approach right now is investigation and documentation, not racing to file," Batchan said in written comments on Monday. In a later interview, he said there are "a lot of potential responsible parties," and that broader civil litigation should follow "thorough investigation."

Not every plaintiffs' attorney believes the litigation will resemble the scale of recent wildfire cases.

Gerald B. Singleton of Singleton Schreiber in San Diego said the Boyle Heights fire presents a different damages profile than events such as the Eaton Fire.

"In Eaton, there are thousands of people with significant monetary losses, so it's going to be a huge civil case," Singleton said. "In Boyle Heights ... the damages are much less clear." While he expects additional lawsuits, Singleton said attorneys still must determine which individuals have viable claims and suggested the incident may ultimately be addressed through a combination of regulatory action and targeted civil litigation.

Several attorneys nevertheless expect additional complaints to be filed as government investigators release more information and the factual record develops. Becker said he expects the overlapping cases ultimately will proceed through coordinated litigation.

Public comment from defendants has been limited.

Pearce Services said it is cooperating with investigators but declined to discuss the pending lawsuits.

"Pearce's focus is on cooperating with the relevant authorities investigating the fire," the company said. "Given the ongoing investigations, Pearce cannot provide further comment on the legal proceedings at this time."

Tina Wolfson of Ahdoot & Wolfson likewise declined to discuss the merits of the Hernandez case but said plaintiffs' counsel intend to work cooperatively as the litigation expands.

"We will of course coordinate with the other plaintiffs' counsel and the defense team to streamline the litigation to minimize disputes and maximize efficiency," Wolfson said.