LA County, 2 cities sue Edison over Eaton Canyon fire

The County of Los Angeles and the cities of Sierra Madre and Pasadena are suing Southern California Edison over the Eaton Canyon wildfire that destroyed 14,000 acres, displaced thousands of residents and led to 17 deaths.

The three complaints were submitted to the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday, as plaintiffs' and Edison's attorneys updated the Los Angeles trial court judge presiding over the litigation about their efforts to develop a testing protocol that allows the utility to reenergize deactivated powerlines while preserving sufficient evidence for the plaintiffs.

The county's and cities' lawsuits claim nearly the same causes of actions claimed by dozens of individual plaintiffs, such as inverse condemnation, negligence, trespass, nuisance, premises liability, and violation of Public Utilities Code Section 2106, and Health and Safety Code Sections 13007 and 13009.

"The Eaton Fire began when electrical equipment within Edison's utility infrastructure contacted, or caused sparks to contact, surrounding vegetation," states the county's complaint.

Edison has said the cause of the fire is unknown and is being investigated.

"Further, Edison had a duty to ensure that flammable vegetation surrounding its infrastructure was maintained and had a duty to utilize public safety power shutoffs when weather conditions made it unsafe to keep its equipment energized and to otherwise ensure that its electrical equipment operated in a safe manner but failed to do so," it stated.

The county seeks compensation for destroyed infrastructure, recreational areas, cleanup and recovery efforts, flood and mudslide prevention as well as workers compensation claims and overtime pay for county workers.

Pasadena's complaint details damage to several municipal structures including the Pasadena Police Department training facility, the city's Municipal Assistance, Solutions, and Hiring building, and water storage tanks.

"By working collaboratively with neighboring jurisdictions, we can more effectively address the devastating impacts this fire has had on our communities while ensuring that those responsible are held accountable," Pasadena's spokeswoman, Lisa Derderian, said in a press statement.

Scores of lawsuits have been filed against Edison since wildfires broke out in Los Angeles County on Jan. 7. Most of those actions have been related and temporarily stayed pending a March 17 case management conference. Judge Laura A. Seigle wishes to avoid a discovery battle early on, so she is pushing the parties in the one active case to agree on an evidence preservation order that would be in effect until March 17. Iglesias v. Southern California Edison Company et al., 25NNCV00200 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed, Jan. 13, 2025).

The one active case was filed by Edelson PC. In January, the firm's attorneys managed to secure from Judge Ashfaq G. Chowdhury a temporary restraining order barring Edison from reenergizing its powerlines near the suspected origin of the fire. The firm has been working with other plaintiffs' counsel. Ravipudi, whose firm Panish Shea Ravipudi represents other plaintiffs, had a seat at the plaintiffs' table on Wednesday.

Ravipudi informed Seigle on Wednesday that plaintiffs and Edison's counsel have made some progress on a testing protocol for powerlines that need to be reenergized.

"With respect to the idle line, the condition present was getting to the tower the week of the 17th, which the parties are in agreement is going to happen. So that'll allow the injection testing to happen the week of the 24th or 25th," Ravipudi said.

"OK, well it sounds like you made a lot of progress," Seigle said. "Is there an agreed upon timeline for getting documents produced or data produced and getting the various inspections and testing done?"

"In part, yes, and I can go through that with respect to the data production components of it," Ravipudi replied.

"Right now, I don't want the details. I just want to know. You said, 'In part, yes.' What is the part that has not yet [been] agreed upon?" Seigle replied.

"When the production will be completed," Ravipudi responded. "So, I know when the ... rolling production will start, but Mr. Dixon is going to get back to us as to a date a certain bit of each category will be completed."

"Does defendant agree that we have an agreed-on timeline except we're still trying to nail down when the data production will be completed," Seigle asked Hueston Hennigan LLP partner Douglas J. Dixon.

"Speaking just to the timeline, your honor, yes - we went through and identified when we start producing data and information where we've agreed to produce. I went through and said it would either be as soon as this Friday or starting next week, and I agree with Mr. Ravipudi that we do need to identify and I'm committed to going back and figuring out when would the production be complete," Dixon continued. Dixon leads Edison's defense.

Injection testing entails injecting a controlled, high current into electrical equipment to assess its performance in a fault condition. Edison informed the California Public Utilities Commission on Jan. 27 that a fault had been detected at approximately 6:11 p.m. on a high voltage transmission line that connects the Gould substation in La Cañada Flintridge to the Eagle Rock substation in Eagle Rock. The letter goes on to say that the line "does not traverse the Eaton Canyon corridor."