Judge narrows Edison liability in Palisades Fire litigation

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge has significantly narrowed claims against Southern California Edison Co. in the Palisades Fire litigation, eliminating claims by more than 4,400 plaintiffs while allowing negligence and other claims involving Malibu properties to proceed.

Judge Samantha P. Jessner issued rulings Tuesday and Wednesday on the second round of demurrers in Grigsby v. City of Los Angeles, 25STCV00832, a consolidated proceeding involving approximately 22,000 plaintiffs and 16 defendants.

The rulings also addressed claims against telecommunications companies, the J. Paul Getty Trust, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District and operators of the Palisades Bowl mobile home park.

Jessner dismissed inverse condemnation and Health and Safety Code Section 13007 claims against Edison without leave to amend, finding that its wooden utility poles were not inherently dangerous simply because they lacked protective fire mesh. She also struck punitive damages allegations.

The judge nevertheless allowed negligence, trespass, nuisance, premises liability and Public Utilities Code Section 2106 claims to proceed for plaintiffs with properties in Malibu.

She dismissed all claims against Edison brought by plaintiffs whose properties were outside Malibu, the relevant area within the utility's service territory.

Edison spokesman David Eisenhauer said the ruling eliminated claims against the utility by 4,435 plaintiffs, leaving 1,846 Malibu plaintiffs with claims against the company.

"We appreciate the court's attention to this matter and are satisfied with the ruling," Eisenhauer said. "We continue to believe we should bear no liability in the Palisades fire."

He said the decision would not affect Edison's defenses in the separate Eaton Fire litigation.

Plaintiffs' liaison counsel Alexander Robertson IV of Robertson & Associates LLP disputed the characterization that thousands of plaintiffs had been removed from the litigation, emphasizing that no plaintiffs had been dismissed from the overall proceeding.

"The big takeaway for us is that all the defendants remain in the case," Robertson said Wednesday.

He said the precise number of plaintiffs outside Malibu who named Edison in their individual complaints remains unknown.

According to the complaint, Edison's wooden poles along Pacific Coast Highway caught fire during the January 2025 wildfire, collapsing into homes and leaving electrical and communications lines blocking firefighter access.

Plaintiffs alleged Edison had tested protective fire mesh in 2022 and installed it elsewhere in high-risk areas but failed to protect its Malibu poles.

Jessner rejected their argument that the omission supported inverse condemnation liability.

"In this case, there was nothing wrong with or inherently dangerous about SCE's utility poles, and the poles themselves did not cause the fire," she wrote.

Installing mesh was a discretionary safety improvement rather than required maintenance, she found.

But Jessner rejected Edison's argument that it owed no duty to protect neighboring properties from an externally ignited wildfire. Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the poles became "active instrumentalities of harm" when they burned, collapsed, spread flames and obstructed firefighters.

She also found that Edison's alleged failure to adopt additional safety measures did not establish the conscious disregard necessary for punitive damages.

Edison is represented by John Hueston, Douglas Dixon, Marshall Camp, Joseph Aronsohn, Michael Behrens, Deeksha Kohli, Khoa Nguyen, Joohwan Kim and Samantha Tan of Hueston Hennigan LLP.

Claims against other defendants

Jessner sustained a general demurrer by Charter Communications, Frontier Communications, Pacific Bell and AT&T, granting leave to amend because plaintiffs had not identified sufficiently specific facts supporting allegations that telecommunications equipment overloaded utility poles.

She dismissed inverse condemnation and Health and Safety Code Section 13007 claims without leave to amend and struck requests for punitive damages and attorney fees. However, she rejected the companies' substantive challenges to negligence, trespass, nuisance and premises liability theories.

Robertson said plaintiffs intend to identify specific damaged poles and add photographs obtained since the master complaint was filed.

The judge also preserved negligence, nuisance and trespass claims against the J. Paul Getty Trust over allegations that overgrown vegetation at the Getty Villa contributed to the fire's spread into neighboring communities.

The Getty argued that a California Coastal Commission permit restricted vegetation management to protect monarch butterflies and certain trees.

Jessner found that the permit did not necessarily excuse the Getty from clearing hazardous vegetation elsewhere or complying with municipal fire-safety requirements. Those questions require further factual development, she ruled.

She also held that a property owner need not have started a wildfire to face trespass liability if negligent vegetation management contributed to its spread.

Jessner dismissed statutory fire liability claims against the Getty without leave to amend and struck certain punitive damages allegations.

The court also preserved public nuisance and breach of contract claims against Palisades Bowl mobile home park defendants, although it dismissed the contract claim against park manager Victor Martinez and Associates Inc. and barred claims by plaintiffs whose properties were outside the park.

Las Virgenes Municipal Water District received leave to challenge an inverse condemnation claim alleging that it shut off water as flames approached the Las Flores Canyon community, leaving residents and firefighters unable to protect homes.

Jessner found the complaint insufficiently identified a dangerous condition in the district's water system but allowed plaintiffs to amend after counsel described potential hydraulic and hydrological design deficiencies identified by an expert.

Robertson said plaintiffs plan to amend the master complaint using information gathered through public records requests and independent investigations.

Discovery has proceeded against city and state defendants but remains stayed against those involved in the latest demurrers.

"We're still at a bit of a disadvantage in not being able to conduct discovery," Robertson said.

Despite the dismissed claims, Robertson said plaintiffs were pleased that significant causes of action remained against every defendant involved in the rulings.

Spectrum Pacific West LLC is represented by Bronwyn F. Pollock, Jillian C. Joseph and Michael H. Bornhorst of Mayer Brown LLP; Frontier California Inc. by Daniel M. Perry, Scott A. Edelman, Nola Heller, Lacey Reimer, Madeline Van Ert and Sarah Yoo of Milbank LLP; and Pacific Bell Telephone Co. and AT&T Mobility LLC by Susan K. Leader and Ali R. Rabbani of Paul Hastings LLP and Thomas F. Koegel of Crowell & Moring LLP.

The Getty Trust is represented by Luis Li, Christopher Chiou, Matthew A. MacDonald, Trevor N. Templeton, Lily Wolfenzon and Eric T. Kohan of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. Las Virgenes Municipal Water District is represented by Joseph A. Salazar Jr., Cameron M. Kalunian and Catalina Martinez-Baenen of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Palisades Bowl entities are represented by Teri Lazorisak and Matthew R. Pahl of Cooksey, Toolen, Gage, Duffy & Woog; Victor Martinez and Associates Inc. by Elaine K. Fresch and Tara D. Shah of Hawkins Parnell & Young LLP.

Counsel for the defendants did not respond to phoned or emailed inquiries by press time on Wednesday.

Associate Editor Laurinda Keys contributed reporting to this article.