Court expedites hearing on Palisades Fire victims' late claims

A Los Angeles judge on Wednesday agreed to speed up proceedings for Palisades Fire victims who are asking to file lawsuits despite missing a July 7 government claim-filing deadline.

According to an order from Superior Court Judge Samantha P. Jessner, these potential plaintiffs will now have their request heard on an expedited basis after she advanced the hearing from April to Dec. 30.

A further status conference on the matter is scheduled for Dec. 15, with briefing to be completed by Dec. 26.

On Tuesday, California deputy attorneys general defending the state's Department of Parks and Recreation argued emergency action was unnecessary because putative plaintiffs could "simply file premature complaints" now and preserve their rights without an expedited hearing.

In an omnibus petition and related ex parte application filed Monday, the petitioners - represented by Boyle Law PC - argued that without a swift ruling, many victims would lose access to pain-and-suffering survival damages. That's because when SB 447, a temporary expansion of noneconomic recovery under the state's Code of Civil Procedure, Section 377.34, expires on New Year's Day.

Also representing the petitioners are attorneys at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, Wolf Wallenstein PC, Furtado Law PC, Daniels Law, Marc J. Bern & Partners LLP and The Vartazarian Law Firm.

Deputy Attorney General Andrew F. Adams filed the state's opposition to the ex parte application. The state park agency said it does not comment on pending litigation. Under Jessner's order, city and state defendants have until Dec. 22 to oppose the petition itself.

The City of Los Angeles is defended by Munger Tolles & Olson, which has a pending demurrer set to be heard in February. Discovery in the case remains largely stayed until then, though a limited set of firefighters and state parks employee depositions are set to begin Thursday under a narrow memory-preservation exception Jessner approved earlier in the month. Grigsby et al. v. City of Los Angeles acting by and through the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power et al., 25STCV00832 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Jan. 13, 2025).

In their demurrers, the city and state argue statutory immunities bar the fire victims' claims and that the Jan. 7 Palisades Fire was caused by a separate criminal act rather than any governmental wrongdoing. An accused arsonist is in federal custody.

The putative plaintiff class - co-led by Robertson & Associates LLP, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP and McNulty Law Firm - argues the preceding Lachman Fire was never fully put out because state officials allegedly directed city firefighters to limit their extinguishing efforts, allowing embers to smolder and later ignite the Palisades blaze a week later.

During related hearings last month, the state's counsel denied that any parks officials gave such instruction.

According to the petitioners' bid to file late claims, their attorneys said the delay stemmed from the wildfire's destruction that left many residents displaced for weeks and consumed by "overwhelming daily demands," from insurance disputes and temporary housing to medical and emotional fallout.

"Given these extraordinary circumstances resulting from the fire, the six-month deadline was far too short," the petition stated. "These facts establish that the only reason Petitioners' claims were not timely filed was due to surprise, mistake, inadvertence and excusable neglect."

Under the Government Claims Act, victims seeking to sue a public agency must first file a government claim within six months of the incident. Those affected by the Jan. 7 Palisades Fire had until July 7 to preserve their right to sue.

Additionally, the petitioners asserted the government defendants would face no prejudice with the late filings.

The state pushed back, arguing that the missed deadline did not justify emergency relief in this instance. "The complained-of procedural situation in the Application ... does not present a dire or unresolvable situation," the opposition brief argued.

"The potential plaintiffs envisioned can simply file their complaints now and avail themselves of both the additional damages of Section 377.34, which would not change any of the government claims requirements."

The petitioners maintain that filing premature lawsuits would create procedural uncertainty across multiple agencies and lead to fragmented, repetitive proceedings. They argued a unified ruling under California Government Code, Section 946.6 is necessary to avoid splintered litigation.

The code allows a judge to let someone sue a public agency even if they missed the government's claim-filing deadline as long as the delay was due to reasonable mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect.