Can civility rule help attorneys' whose houses burned?

In a recent case, defense counsel moved for relief after the plaintiff missed an arbitration payment because the attorney's house was flooded. That incident could foreshadow some small but crucial challenges for certain attorneys representing plaintiffs and defendants in the Los Angeles wildfires litigation.

Beyond the sheer scope of the fires, those cases are notable because attorneys on both sides of the bar lost their homes, as did some judges. As they deal with those losses, there will be ample opportunities for small lapses with big consequences.

Yet every attorney the Daily Journal spoke with for this article said their obligations to their clients remained the same regardless of their personal circumstances.

"There is nothing special to the wildfires that says attorneys get special latitude," said legal ethics expert Heather L. Rosing, co-vice chair of the California Civility Task Force. "That said, everybody is very understanding of colleagues' trauma of losing their homes. Everyone is granting extensions, but the key is asking for the extensions upfront."

Rosing is a founding partner of Rosing Pott & Strohbehn in San Diego.

The California Code of Civil Procedure Section 473 allows a court to grant relief from an adverse action if a deadline was missed due to a reasonable oversight.

A joint report by the California Lawyers Association and the California Judges Association urges counsel to work together to grant discovery extensions and other accommodations when feasible.

Dozens of cases representing hundreds of plaintiffs have been filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court since the Eaton Canyon and Pacific Palisades fires ignited on Jan. 7. More than 14,000 acres were burned in the Eaton Canyon fire, and 24,000 acres in the Pacific Palisades. Nearly 30 people died between the two blazes, according to the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner.

Many more lawsuits are expected to be filed.

"No one makes you file a lawsuit one week after a fire. They're all fighting to be first in the gate," quipped one attorney who is not involved in the wildfire litigation but is watching the proceedings closely. The attorney asked not to be quoted by name.

Several attorneys said they were affected by the fires but did not want to be quoted about possible difficulties handling their caseload.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury on Monday ordered Southern California Edison not to reenergize its electrical towers and transmission lines until Feb. 18 in the Altadena and Pasadena area where a fault was reported just before the Eaton Canyon fire broke out.

Investigators are trying to determine the cause of that blaze. The fault is a big clue, as is video footage that appears to show electricity arcing in the distance at the base of an Edison tower, said an attorney with Edelson PC who sued the utility over the fire. Southern California Edison is represented by Hueston Hennigan. Iglesias v. Southern California Edison Company et al., 25NNCV00200 (L.A. Super. Ct., led Jan. 13, 2025).

Significantly fewer lawsuits have been filed seeking damages from the Palisades Fire compared to the Eaton Fire in Altadena, primarily because there is no evidence linking utility equipment to the blaze and only one cause of action - inverse condemnation - is being pursued.