LADWP faces lawsuit over Palisades Fire

The mass tort complaint filed against the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power raises significant questions about municipal utility liability and infrastructure maintenance protocols, according to lead counsel in the Palisades Fire litigation.

The inverse condemnation action, filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges systemic failures in LADWP's water infrastructure management materially contributed to the scope of damages in the ongoing disaster. Grigsby et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al., 25STCV00832, (L.A. Super., Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2025).

In an interview, lead counsel Roger Behle of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP pointed to established precedent in California utility liability law.

"Back in 2008 during the freeway complex fire, the Yorba Linda Water District had problems with its water supply system that left first responders without water access, and multiple houses were destroyed," Behle noted. "That case, though not litigated by us, went through judgment and settled. It's not a novel theory -- while municipal utility failures of this magnitude are rare, there is precedent of water districts having similar failures that resulted in successful legal claims."

The complaint's theory of liability centers on LADWP's management decisions regarding the Santa Ynez Reservoir, a 117-million-gallon facility that remained offline during the incident.

Behle questioned the utility's maintenance protocols.

"The history of the Santa Ynez Reservoir repair itself is confounding. They had an issue with the cover and according to the union leader, it was something that could have and should have been repaired internally. Instead, it went out to bid with an $89,000 cap, but then in typical government fashion, it ended up under contract months later for $120,000," he said.

The litigation strategy will focus on three primary areas of inquiry, according to Behle: the timing of repairs, the decision to outsource maintenance, and apparent communications failures with emergency services. "We have intelligence that LAFD wasn't even made aware there was no water available via the Santa Ynez Reservoir," he said.

LADWP representatives could not be immediately reached for comment.

Behle said the discovery process will heavily rely on expert testimony to establish causation.

"Like any other case, even against a utility, we utilize different experts to analyze how things should work. They identify where and why failures occurred. This will be based on expert input and discovery to understand how first responders were left without water within 12 hours," he said.

While acknowledging that the reservoir's full capacity might not have prevented all damages, Behle said that its availability could have significantly limited the disaster's scope.

"Some say 110 million gallons in the Santa Ynez Reservoir wouldn't have saved everything, but if it saved even one house or reduced damage to 10 houses, that water should have been there," he said, adding that multiple clients had told him that fire personnel indicated they could have saved properties or contained spot fires with adequate water pressure.

Gov. Gavin Newsom has initiated an investigation into LADWP's infrastructure management decisions, focusing on the agency's maintenance protocols during periods of elevated fire risk. Newsom specifically noted the lack of water pressure from some of the fire hydrants and the decision to decommission the Santa Ynez Reservoir. The governor said those issues "likely impaired" emergency responders' capacity to protect both residential structures and evacuation routes.

The litigation seeks compensatory damages for affected Pacific Palisades residents who suffered property damage and personal injuries. The Foley team has previously represented plaintiffs from the 2018 Woolsey Fire, 2017 Thomas Fire, 2020 Bobcat Fire, and 2023 Maui Fire.