1 ALEXANDER ROBERTSON, IV (State Bar No.

127042)
[email protected]
2 ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP
32121 Lindero Canyon Road, Suite 200
3 Westlake Village, California 91361
Telephone.: (818) 851-3850 ∙ Facsimile: (818) 851-3851
4
ROGER N. BEHLE, JR. (State Bar No. 174755)
5 [email protected]
ROBERT A. CURTIS (State Bar No. 203870)
6 [email protected]
KEVIN D. GAMARNIK (State Bar No. 273445)
7 [email protected]
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
8 15 West Carrillo Street
Santa Barbara, California 93101
9 Telephone: (805) 962-9495 ∙ Facsimile: (805) 962-0722

10 JAY C. GANDHI (State Car No. 192613)

[email protected]
11 GANDHI LAW GROUP
2450 Colorado Ave, Suite 100E
12 Santa Monica, California 90404
Telephone: (310) 800-1531
13
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
14

15 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

16 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE

17 DAN GRIGSBY, an individual; Case No. 25STCV00832

KAREN GRIGSBY, an individual;
18 GRIGSBY FAMILY TRUST; FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
DAN GRIGSBY, as Trustee of the GRIGSBY
19 FAMILY TRUST; 1. INVERSE CONDEMNATION;
KAREN GRIGSBY, as Trustee of the 2. PUBLIC NUISANCE; AND
20 GRIGSBY FAMILY TRUST; 3. DANGEROUS CONDITION OF
ROBERT FLUTIE, an individual; PUBLIC PROPERTY
21 ABUNDANT SUCCESS, LLC d/b/a FLOUR
CAFÉ AND PIZZERIA;
22 ANDREA LOEWEN, an individual; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JEFFREY BAZYLER, an individual;
23 DANIEL CORREA DE TOLEDO, an Assigned for All Purposes to:
individual; Hon. Stuart M. Rice, Department 1
24 AIDA GARCIA-TOLEDO, an individual;
JOHN FERBAS, an individual; Action Filed: January 13, 2025
25 KATHIE FERBAS, an individual; Trial Date: Not set.
ASHLEY FERBAS, an individual;
26 FERBAS FAMILY TRUST;
JOHN FERBAS, as Trustee of the FERBAS
27 FAMILY TRUST;
KATHIE FERBAS, as Trustee of the
28 FERBAS FAMILY TRUST;
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 PETER PARTAIN, an individual;
LISA PARTAIN, an individual;
2 MILES PARTAIN, an individual;
MARCUS PARTAIN, an individual;
3 YELENA ENTIN, an individual;
ANNA ENTIN, an individual;
4 YELENA ENTIN LIVING TRUST;
YELENA ENTIN, as Trustee of the YELENA
5 ENTIN LIVING TRUST;
BORIS YERUHIM, an individual;
6 ALLA YERUHIM, an individual;
BORIS YERUHIM, as Trustee of the
7 YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST;
ALLA YERUHIM, as Trustee of the
8 YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST;
KRISTIN ARMFIELD, an individual;
9 KRISTIN ARMFIELD, as Trustee of the
KRISTIN ARMFIELD TRUST,
10
Plaintiffs,
11
vs.
12
CITY OF LOS ANGELES ACTING BY AND
13 THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER,
14 a government entity; CITY OF LOS
ANGELES, a government entity;
15 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS
AND RECREATION, a government entity;
16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive,
17
Defendants.
18

19 AND ALL RELATED CASES.

20

21 Plaintiffs, DAN GRIGSBY, an individual; KAREN GRIGSBY, an individual; GRIGSBY

22 FAMILY TRUST; DAN GRIGSBY, as Trustee of the GRIGSBY FAMILY TRUST; KAREN

23 GRIGSBY, as Trustee of the GRIGSBY FAMILY TRUST; ROBERT FLUTIE, an individual;

24 ABUNDANT SUCCESS, LLC d/b/a FLOUR CAFÉ AND PIZZERIA; ANDREA LOEWEN, an

25 individual; JEFFREY BAZYLER, an individual; DANIEL CORREA DE TOLEDO, an

26 individual; AIDA GARCIA-TOLEDO, an individual; JOHN FERBAS, an individual; KATHIE

27 FERBAS, an individual; ASHLEY FERBAS, an individual; FERBAS FAMILY TRUST; JOHN

28 FERBAS, as Trustee of the FERBAS FAMILY TRUST; KATHIE FERBAS, as Trustee of the
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 2
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 FERBAS FAMILY TRUST; PETER PARTAIN, an individual; LISA PARTAIN, an individual;

2 MILES PARTAIN, an individual; MARCUS PARTAIN, an individual; YELENA ENTIN, an

3 individual; ANNA ENTIN, an individual; YELENA ENTIN LIVING TRUST; YELENA ENTIN,

4 as Trustee of the YELENA ENTIN LIVING TRUST; BORIS YERUHIM, an individual; ALLA

5 YERUHIM, an individual; BORIS YERUHIM, as Trustee of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST;

6 ALLA YERUHIM, as Trustee of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST; KRISTIN ARMFIELD, an

7 individual; and KRISTIN ARMFIELD, as Trustee of the KRISTIN ARMFIELD TRUST, bring

8 this action for damages against Defendants, CITY OF LOS ANGELES ACTING BY AND

9 THROUGH THE LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWER (“LADWP”),

10 CITY OF LOS ANGELES ("CITY"), CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

11 RECREATION and STATE OF CALIFORNIA (collectively referred hereinafter to as "CA STATE

12 PARKS"), and DOES 1 through 50 as follows:

13 INTRODUCTION

14 1. This case arises from the deadly Palisades Fire, which reportedly began January 7,

15 2025, at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the Temescal Canyon Trail near Skull Rock in Pacific Palisades.

16 (the “Palisades Fire”). The Palisades Fire has become the worst urban conflagration in the history of

17 Los Angeles, having destroyed 6,837 homes and businesses, damaged another 973 structures, killed

18 twelve (12) people, and caused injuries to 3 civilians and 1 firefighter. According to a recent study,

19 5,058 single family homes, 135 multi-family residences, 361 mobile homes, 101 commercial

20 buildings, 51 school structures and 6 church structures were destroyed in the Palisades Fire.1

21 2. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this unprecedented devastation was caused by

22 the combined failures of CA STATE PARKS, which allowed a fire to rekindle in Topanga State Park,

23 compounded by LADWP's empty reservoirs and decision to leave its powerlines energized throughout

24 the firestorm, which sparked additional fires throughout Pacific Palisades on January 7, 2025.

25 Additionally, vacant lots owned by the CITY were overgrown with flammable brush in violation of

26 the CITY's own brush clearance ordinances, which caught fire and spread to adjacent homes and

27
1
28 "Impact of 2025 Los Angeles Wildfires and Comparative Study", Institute for Applied
ROBERTSON &
Economics, February, 2025.
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 3
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 structures.

2 3. As if the destruction of Pacific Palisades and eastern Malibu were not horrible enough

3 for its victims, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP has engaged in a campaign of

4 misinformation and misrepresentations in the months following the fire in an effort to conceal its

5 responsibility for causing this unprecedented destruction. These misrepresentations include (1)

6 LADWP's statements that its powerlines were de-energized immediately prior to and during the

7 firestorm; (2) statements that "all pump stations remained operational during the fire, and water

8 supply remained strong to the Palisades area"; (3) statements that the Palisades Fire "was an

9 unprecedented hurricane wind-driven wildfire"; and (4) statements that "Water pressure in the

10 system was lost due to unprecedented and extreme water demand to fight the wildfire without aerial

11 support." As set forth below, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these representations are false

12 and were ratified by LADWP's upper management and City officials with the intent to discourage

13 victims from timely bringing claims against LADWP and that LADWP is liable for these

14 misrepresentations pursuant Government Code §822.2. Indeed, it appears that LADWP and the City

15 were more worried about protecting its image than on protecting the residents of Pacific Palisades.2

16 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

17 4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to California Code

18 of Civil Procedure § 395(a) because, at all times relevant, Defendants have conducted significant

19 business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California, so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction

20 over Defendants by California courts consistent with the traditional notions of fair play and

21 substantial justice. The amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.

22 5. Venue is proper in this County pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §

23 395.5 because, at all times relevant herein, Defendants LADWP maintains its principal place of

24 business at 111 North Hope Street, Los Angeles, California; CITY maintains its principal place of

25 business at 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles; and the CA STATE PARKS maintains its Angeles

26 District office at 1925 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, California.

27
2
28 https://ktla.com/news/local-news/during-the-fires-ladwp-worked-overtime-to-control-the-
ROBERTSON &
narrative-and-douse-misinformation/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 4
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 ///

2 THE PLAINTIFFS

3 6. Plaintiffs, DAN GRIGSBY and KAREN GRIGSBY, are residents of the County of

4 Los Angeles and trustees of the GRIGSBY FAMILY TRUST, which owns the real property located

5 at 805 Alma Real Drive, Pacific Palisades, California. The Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their

6 real and personal property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss

7 of the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property.

8 7. Plaintiff, ROBERT FLUTIE, is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and the

9 owner of the real property located at 1127 Charm Acres Place, Pacific Palisades, California. The

10 Plaintiff has suffered damage to his real and personal property, in addition to suffering annoyance,

11 discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use and enjoyment of his property.

12 8. Plaintiff, ABUNDANT SUCCESS, LLC d/b/a FLOUR CAFÉ AND PIZZERIA, is

13 owned and operated by Robert Flutie. The Palisades Fire destroyed the Plaintiff's real and personal

14 property and caused Plaintiff to suffer loss of income.

15 9. Plaintiff, ANDREA LOEWEN, is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and resides

16 at 17250 W. Sunset Blvd., Pacific Palisades, California. The Plaintiff has suffered damage to her

17 real and personal property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss

18 of the peaceful use and enjoyment of her property.

19 10. Plaintiff, JEFFREY BAZYLER, is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and the

20 owner of the real properties located at 19562 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California and 20842

21 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California. The Plaintiff has suffered damage to his real and

22 personal properties, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the

23 peaceful use and enjoyment of his properties.

24 11. Plaintiffs, DANIEL CORREA DE TOLEDO and AIDA GARCIA-TOLEDO, are

25 residents of the County of Los Angeles and the owners of the real property located at 16856 Edgar

26 Street, Pacific Palisades, California. The Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their real and personal

27 property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use

28 and enjoyment of their property.

ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 5
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 ///

2 12. Plaintiffs, JOHN FERBAS and KATHIE FERBAS, are residents of the County of

3 Los Angeles, and trustees of the FERBAS FAMILY TRUST, which owns the real property located

4 at 620 Tabard Road, Malibu, California 90265. Plaintiff, ASHLEY FERBAS, is John and Kathie's

5 adult daughter who also resided at the subject property. The Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their

6 real and personal property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss

7 of the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property.

8 13. Plaintiffs, PETER PARTAIN and LISA PARTAIN, are residents of the County of

9 Los Angeles, and owners of the real properties located at 14721 Bestor Blvd., Pacific Palisades,

10 California and 14727 Bestor Blvd., Pacific Palisades, California. Plaintiffs, MILES PARTAIN and

11 MARCUS PARTAIN, are Peter and Lisa's adult sons who also resides at the subject property.

12 Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their real and personal property, in addition to suffering

13 annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property.

14 14. Plaintiff, YELENA ENTIN and ANNA ENTIN are residents of the County of Los

15 Angeles. YELENA ENTIN is the trustee of the YELENA ENTIN LIVING TRUST, dated

16 September 11, 2007, which is the owner of record of the real property located at 17872

17 Castellammare Drive, Pacific Palisades. ANNA ENTIN is the adult daughter of YELENA ENTIN

18 who also resides at the property. Plaintiffs have suffered damage to their real and personal property,

19 in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use and

20 enjoyment of their property.

21 15. Plaintiffs, BORIS YERUHIM and ALLA YERUHIM are residents of the County of

22 Los Angeles, and are trustees of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST, dated September 30, 2007, which

23 is the 90% owner of the real property located at 17854 Castellammare Drive, Pacific Palisades. The

24 YELENA ENTIN LIVING TRUST is the 10% owner of 17854 Castellammare Drive. Plaintiffs have

25 suffered damage to their real and personal property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort,

26 mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use and enjoyment of their property.

27 16. Plaintiff, KRISTIN ARMFIELD is a resident of the County of Los Angeles and

28 trustee of the KRISTIN ARMFIELD TRUST, which owns the real property located at 17849
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 6
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Castellammare Drive, Pacific Palisades. . Plaintiff has suffered damage to her real and personal

2 property, in addition to suffering annoyance, discomfort, mental anguish and loss of the peaceful use

3 and enjoyment of her property.

4 THE DEFENDANTS

5 17. At all times herein mentioned LADWP is a public utility authorized to do business,

6 and doing business in the State of California, with its principal place of business in the County of

7 Los Angeles, State of California.

8 18. LADWP is the largest municipal utility in the United States. LADWP is in the

9 business of providing electricity and water service to more than four million residents and businesses

10 in the City of Los Angeles, and more particularly, to Plaintiffs’ residences, businesses, and

11 properties. LADWP employes 11,000 employees and has an annual budget of $6.1 billion.

12 19. At all times mentioned herein, LADWP was the supplier of water and electricity to

13 members of the public in Pacific Palisades, and elsewhere in City of Los Angeles, as well as

14 maintaining water infrastructure. As part of supplying water and power to members of the public,

15 LADWP installed, constructed, built, maintained, and operated a water and electrical supply system,

16 for the purpose of making water and power available for delivery to members of the general public,

17 including Plaintiffs.

18 20. LADWP is a "public utility" as defined in Section 216(a)(1) of the California Public

19 Utilities Code.

20 21. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, commonly

21 known as CA STATE PARKS, is a department under the California Natural Resources Agency, a

22 state cabinet-level agency of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, created pursuant to California

23 Government Code §§ 12800 and 12805, et seq. CA STATE PARKS operates the largest park system

24 in the United States.

25 22. CITY OF LOS ANGELES is a charter city and municipal corporation organized

26 under the law of the State of California. The CITY is a legal entity with the capacity to sue and be

27 sued.

28 / / /
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 7
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

2 DOE DEFENDANTS

3 23. The true names of DOES 1 through 50, whether individual, corporate, associate, or

4 otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs who, under California Code of Civil Procedure § 474, sues

5 these Defendants under fictitious names.

6 24. Each of the fictitiously named Defendants is responsible in some manner for the

7 conduct alleged herein, including, without limitation, by way of aiding, abetting, furnishing the

8 means for, and/or acting in capacities that create agency, respondeat superior, and/or predecessor or

9 successor-in-interest relationships with the other Defendants.

10 25. The Doe Defendants are private individuals, associations, partnerships, corporations,

11 or other entities that actively assisted and participated in the negligent and wrongful conduct alleged

12 herein in ways that are currently unknown to Plaintiffs. Some or all of the DOE Defendants may be

13 residents of the State of California. Plaintiffs may amend or seek to amend this Complaint to allege

14 the true names, capacities, and responsibility of these Doe Defendants once they are ascertained, and

15 to add additional facts and/or legal theories. Plaintiffs make all allegations contained in this

16 Complaint against all Defendants, including DOES 1 through 50.

17 DEFENDANTS HAD NOTICE OF THE LIFE-THREATENING

18 DESTRUCTIVE SANTA ANA WIND EVENT
19 26. At all times mentioned herein, Defendants were aware that the Southern California,

20 including Pacific Palisades, had received virtually no rainfall in the eight months preceding the

21 Palisades Fire, and that an above-average growth of flammable vegetation had grown in Topanga

22 State Park after two years of record rainfall. Defendants were also aware that Pacific Palisades

23 frequently experiences “Santa Ana” wind conditions, which are highly conducive to the rapid spread

24 of wildfires and extreme fire behavior. The Santa Ana winds are not abnormal or unforeseeable, and

25 everyone who lives and works in Southern California is familiar with this type of extreme wind

26 event.

27 27. On January 19, 2018, the California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") adopted

28 the CPUC Fire-Threat Map, which “depicts areas of California where there in an elevated hazard for
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 8
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 ignition and rapid spread of power line fires due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation, and other

2 environmental conditions.”3 The area where the Palisades Fire burned is designated as a “High Fire

3 Threat District – Tier 3”, which means there is an extreme risk (including likelihood and potential

4 impacts on people and property) from utility related wildfires.

5 28. The Defendants were put on notice by the publication of this Fire-Threat Map in 2018

6 and therefore knew well in advance of the Palisades Fire of the elevated fire risk in the Pacific

7 Palisades area for ignition and rapid spread of fires “due to strong winds, abundant dry vegetation,

8 and/or other environmental conditions.”

9 29. On January 3, 2025, the National Weather Service Los Angeles ("NWS") issued a

10 Fire Weather Watch for portions of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties warning for the potential of

11 "damaging north to northeast winds, that are likely to peak Tuesday-Wednesday." "Any fire starts

12 may grow rapidly in size with extreme fire behavior."

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 3
See, PUC Fire Map Depicts Areas of Elevated Hazards In State: First Step in Creation of Tools
28 to Help Manage Resources, Cal Pub. Utils. Comm’n (May 26, 2016), available at
ROBERTSON &
http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/pdfs/fthreat_map.pdf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 9
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13 30. On

14 January 5, 2025 at

15 5:02 p.m., the NWS

16 upgraded the Fire Weather Watch to "Extreme Fire Conditions" with "Widespread Damaging

17 Winds" for most of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. The NWS further warned of "rapid fire

18 growth and extreme fire behavior with any fire starts."

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 10
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 31. On January 6, 2025, the NWS issued a rare “Particularly Dangerous Situation” Red

19 Flag Warning for Los Angeles and Ventura Counties predicting “damaging wind gusts 50-80 mph,

20 isolated 80-100 mph for mountains and foothills” and “extreme & life-threatening fire behavior”.

21 / / /

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 11
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11
32. Further, on January 6, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., the NWS Los Angeles office issued a
12
“LIFE THREATENING & DESTRUCTIVE WINDSTORM” WARNING which included the
13
Pacific Palisades area. "HEADS UP!!! A LIFE-THREATENING, DESTRUCTIVE, Widespread
14
Windstorm is expected Tue afternoon – Wed morning across much of Ventura/LA Co. Areas."
15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 12
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 33. Later that day at 6:47 p.m. on January 6, 2025, the NWS issued an alarming

2 message for much of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. "This is a Particularly Dangerous

3 Situation – in other words, this is about as bad as it gets in terms of fire weather. Widespread

4 damaging winds and low humidities will likely case fire starts to rapidly grow in size with extreme

5 fire behavior."

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 / / /

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 13
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 34. On January 7, 2025 at 8:36 a.m., LA City Fire Department ("LAFD") posted a

2 warning on its social media account on X stating "Extreme #fireweather coming today. Your

3 #LAFD asks you to be #readysetgo."

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18 DEFENDANTS HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE HISTORY OF

19 DESTRUCTIVE FIRES IN TOPANGA STATE PARK
20 35. According to the CA STATE PARKS, "At least 25 fires are known to have burned

21 through all or part of Topanga State Park since the mid-1920s. Due to topography in the Santa

22 Monica Mountains, fires can spread rapidly and extensively when Santa Ana winds are present.

23 Santa Ana winds in excess of 90 M.P.H. combined with the steep terrain and north/south

24 alignment of canyons promotes rapid fire movement."4

25 36. On May 14, 2021, another wildfire named the "Palisades Fire" ignited in Topanga

26 State Park above The Summit neighborhood just northwest of the suspected Area of Origin of the

27
4
28 Topanga State Park Final General Plan, October 2012
ROBERTSON &
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/01finalgp-exec-ch1.pdf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 14
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 January 7, 2025 fire. The 2021 fire began at 10:02 p.m. and spread rapidly from an initial 15 acres to

2 750 acres by 6:30 a.m. on May 15, 2021.5

10

11

12

13

14 37. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on November 13, 2024, another brush fire
15 ignited immediately adjacent to the Santa Ynez Reservoir, which was empty at the time in

16 connection with the repair of the floating cover. Firefighters successfully extinguished that fire.

17 Afterward, an LAFD Public Information Officer stated, "Fortunately, this is not a wind event…we

18 do have a challenge with water in the area because there aren't any hydrants so we are sending

19 what we call water tenders, which are trucks that carry a lot of water to be able to act as a source."6

20 / / /

21

22

23

24

25 5
https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/firefighters-battle-pacific-palisades-brush-fire/
6
26
Will Conybeare, Vegetation Fire Consumes Hillside in Pacific Palisades, KTLA 5 News (Nov. 13,
27 2024, 11:27 AM), http://ktla.com/news/local-news/vegetation-fire-consumes-hillside-in-pacific-
palisades/.
28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 15
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13 38. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the dense vegetation in Topanga State Park

14 where the January 7, 2025 fire erupted had not burned for more than 47+ years since the 1978

15 Mandeville Fire.

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 39. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that despite the CA STATE PARKS' knowledge

27 of the history of destructive wildfires in Topanga State Park, and that dense flammable vegetation

28 had built up for over 47+ years in the area where the January 7, 2025 Palisades Fire is suspected to
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 16
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 have originated, CA STATE PARKS refused to create fuel modification zones in Topanga State

2 Park. In fact, CA STATE PARKS' Operations Manual states that "It is the Department's policy to

3 prohibit the construction and maintenance of firebreaks, fuelbreaks, and other fuel modification

4 zones on Department lands, except when:

5 a. Required by state law to clear around structures/facilities'

6 b. Previous legal commitments have been made to allow the creation and maintenance

7 of fuel modification areas;

8 c. It is critical to the protection of life or park resources; or

9 d. Park vegetation 130 horizontal feet from a non-Department habitable structure is

10 capable of generating sufficient radiant/convective heat when burning under Red Flag

11 Warning conditions to ignite the habitable structure."7

12 THE JANUARY 1, 2025 LACHMAN FIRE

13 40. At 12:07 a.m. on January 1, 2025 a brush fire was reported near Skull Rock on the

14 Temescal Ridge Trail in Pacific Palisades. This New Year's Eve fire was named the "Lachman Fire".

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7
ROBERTSON &
https://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/21299/files/DOM%200300%20Natural%20Resources.pdf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 17
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 News footage captured the event, with walls of flames towering over homes and firefighters with

2 hoses running into backyards. Shortly after 3:30 a.m., LAFD reported they had stopped forward

3 progress of the fire. At approximately 4:48 a.m., LAFD reported firefighters had "completed the hose

4 line around the perimeter of the fire and it is fully contained."8

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8
ROBERTSON &
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-28/controlled-burn-pacific-palisades-atf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 18
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 41. The image below was captured on January 1, 2025 of the Lachman Fire at 1:50 a.m.

2 from the Temescal Trail Head 2 camera located on LADWP's Temescal Water Tank above The

3 Summit neighborhood of Pacific Palisades.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 42. The Lachman Fire put the Defendants on notice that the fuel moisture levels, relative

17 humidity and heavy vegetation growth in that area were conducive to dangerous wildfires and were a

18 threat to neighboring homeowners in Pacific Palisades which necessitated rapid deployment of

19 firefighting resources with a sufficient water supply.

20 43. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LAFD did not post a fire watch or use a thermal

21 imager at the Lachman Fire after the reported containment of the fire to ensure that there were no

22 embers, hot spots or residual heat remaining in the vegetation. Below are photographs taken on January

23 2, 2025 at 8:07 a.m. of the Lachman Fire burn area by a hiker, which shows that no firefighters

24 remained on scene less four hours after the fire was declared "fully contained".

25 / / /

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 19
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 20
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 44. According to a CBS News report, a hiker named Zane Mitchell took the photo below

2 on the Temescal Ridge Trail early on the morning on January 1, 2025, which depicts smoldering within

3 the burn scar of the Lachman Fire.9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23 45. The graphic below shows the proximity of the Lachman Fire to the suspected

24 origin of the January 7, 2025 10:30 a.m. Palisades Fire.

25 / / /

26

27

28 9
ROBERTSON &
https://www.instagram.com/cbsnewsconfirmed/reel/DFLeAPiR6Jx/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 21
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12 46. Resident Don Griffin took the photograph below on the left of the Lachman Fire on

13 January 1st from his backyard and then took the photograph on the right of the Palisades Fire on

14 January 7th shortly after it erupted.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 22
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 THE PALISADES FIRE ERUPTS ON JANUARY 7, 2025
2 47. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at approximately 10:29 a.m. on January 7, 2025,

3 a 911 call from 1190 N. Piedra Morada Drive in Pacific Palisades reported a vegetation fire near the

4 location of where the Lachman Fire had burned six days earlier. The first LAFD fire engines arrived

5 on scene at 10:48 a.m., or 19 minutes after the first 911 call.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 48. A fire engine enroute from Station 69 in the Palisades requested 10 more engines,

22 and moments later doubled that number. "I've ordered 20 additional engine companies,"

23 dispatch confirmed.10

24 49. At approximately 10:48 a.m., LAFD Captain Brandon Ruedy radioed into

25 dispatch: "It's 100% in alignment with the wind." "This has the potential for 200-plus acres in the

26 next 20 minutes."

27

28 10
ROBERTSON &
http://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-02-02/escape-from-the-palisades
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 23
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 50. Minutes later, LAFD helicopter FIRE4 radioed to dispatch: "The fire started in 23's

2 district, just below the old burn scar from the Palisades Fire." Another engine radioed minutes

3 later, "The foot of the fire started real close to where the last fire was on."

4 51. The L.A. Emergency Alert system sent out the first evacuation warning at 11:13

5 a.m.

6 52. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by 11:24 a.m., flames had engulfed both

7 sides of Palisades Drive, causing gridlock as people attempted to flee the fire from the Palisades

8 Highlands.

9 53. The first evacuation order for Pacific Palisades west of Temescal came at 12:07

10 p.m., nearly two hours after the fire began.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 54. The second evacuation order for the Pacific Palisades east of Temescal case at 1:38

20 p.m.

21 55. By 2:00 p.m., an L.A. County fire engine radioed to dispatch: "Sunset Boulevard is

22 impassable due to approximately 100 abandoned vehicles in the road."

23 56. On information and belief, an L.A. County Fire Department bulldozer was used at

24 approximately 2:36 p.m. to clear a path through hundreds of abandoned cars in order to create

25 access on Sunset Boulevard for fire engines.

26 / / /

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 24
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12 57. On information and belief, by 2:30 p.m., the fire had spread to 770 acres and was
13 heading down Palisades Drive towards Pacific Coast Highway.

14 58. At approximately 3:37 p.m., LAFD and government officials held a press
15 conference at Will Rogers State Beach. LAFD Chief Kristin Crowley said that the Palisades Fire

16 had spread to 1,261 acres and was being fueled by strong winds and surrounding topography.

17 Chief Crowley reported that there were 250 LAFD firefighters on scene (out of a total of 3,246

18 uniformed fire personnel in the LAFD), 46 engines, 3 trucks, 5 helicopters, 4 brush patrols, 2

19 water tenders and 2 bulldozers.

20 59. During the press conference, Governor Gavin Newsom stated: "There's a reason we
21 pre-positioned hundreds of assets and personnel on Sunday in anticipation of this wind event. 110

22 engines specifically were sent down, 45 Cal Fire, 65 through our mutual aid system through the

23 Office of Emergency Services, water tenders down here, 7 new helicopters we brought from

24 Northern California down to Southern California."

25 60. However, none of those firefighting assets mentioned by the Governor were pre-
26 deployed to Pacific Palisades, a wildfire-prone area and the site of the Lachman Fire just six days

27 earlier.

28 / / /
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 25
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 61. On information and belief, by 7:00 p.m. all fixed wing tankers and water-dropping

2 helicopters were grounded due to high winds.11 By 7:30 p.m. the fire had expanded to nearly 3,000

3 acres, as the windstorm intensified.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
11
28 https://www.dailynews.com/2025/01/22/lafd-helicopter-pilots-describe-water-drops-challenges-
ROBERTSON &
of-battling-palisades-fire-in-high-winds/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 26
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 DURING THE INITIAL ATTACK OF THE FIRE THERE WERE
2 NO "HURRICANE FORCE" WINDS
3 62. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the January 7, 2025 Palisades Fire occurred

4 under historically typical, predictable and manageable weather conditions, contrary to LADWP's

5 false public statements that "This was an unprecedented hurricane wind-driven wildfire in an

6 urban area."12

7 63. On information and belief, analysis from 48 weather stations shows wind speeds

8 were well below hurricane thresholds during the critical period of potential containment from

9 10:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. (6 hours) on January 7th, when CAL FIRE reported the fire expanding

10 from 10 acres to 200 acres. Data from 34 weather stations located within 10 miles of the fire's

11 origin show that, during the 6-hour potential containment period, the average maximum sustained

12 wind speed was just 16.77 mph, with average maximum gusts of 24.82 mph.13

13 64. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these facts refute LADWP's misleading

14 narratives that extreme weather conditions caused the fire's spread, rather than LADWP's lack of

15 water supply and water pressure at fire hydrants and operational helipads and water for firefighting

16 helicopters. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the LADWP was on actual notice of

17 inadequate water pressure for firefighting purposes at certain fire hydrants as early as 2021 if and

18 when the Santa Ynez Reservoir was insufficiently supplied with water, and in fact installed

19 pressure recording devices at certain fire hydrants "[t]o address the community concerns about

20 adequate fire flow" and LADWP agreed that "[t]he data will be evaluated to determine if further

21 studies and actions are needed."

22 65. The graphics below illustrate that the wind speeds during the 6-hour potential

23 containment period were typical and not extreme.14

24 / / /

25

26 12
https://www.ladwpnews.com/pacific-palisades-fire-correcting-misinformation-about-ladwps-
water-system/
27
13
https://firerebuild.com/palisades-fire-weather-report-and-analysis/
28 14
ROBERTSON &
https://firerebuild.com/palisades-fire-weather-report-and-analysis/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 27
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 28
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 29
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 LADWP'S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM IS A PUBLIC
2 IMPROVEMENT AND COLLAPSED DUE TO A LACK OF
3 WATER PRESSURE
4 66. LADWP's water supply to Pacific Palisades is fed by a single outdated 36-inch

5 trunk line along Sunset Boulevard – the Westgate Trunk Line – that flows by gravity from the

6 Stone Canyon Reservoir located in Bel-Air up to the Santa Ynez Reservoir and Palisades

7 Reservoir on Chautauqua Boulevard. There, water is pumped uphill into three water storage tanks,

8 each with a capacity of 1 million gallons of water. The tanks keep up water pressure to homes in

9 Palisades Highlands – and fire hydrants – by gravity flow from the storage tanks.15

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 / / /

23

24

25

26 15
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-01-16/inside-the-dwps-losing-battle-to-keep-water-
27 flowing-as-the-palisades-fire-exploded

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 30
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 31
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 67. During the Palisades Fire, the reservoirs, storage tanks and the pump stations that

2 supply them could not keep pace with the demand placed on the water supply, including the fire

3 hydrants, and were a substantial cause of the uncontrolled spread of the Palisades Fire.

4 68. On information and belief, the first storage tank – the Marquez Knolls tank – ran

5 dry around 4:45 p.m. on Tuesday, January 7th; the water level in the second tank – the Trailer Tank

6 – began to plummet and it ran dry around 8:30 p.m. on Tuesday, January 7th; and water levels in

7 the third tank – the Temescal Tank – began to drop around 6:30 p.m. and it ran dry around 3:00

8 a.m. on Wednesday, January 8th.16

9 69. LADWP has admitted that 20% of the nearly 1,100 fire hydrants in the Palisades

10 lost water pressure during the fire.17

11 70. LADWP issued a press release on January 23, 2025 titled, "Correcting

12 Misinformation About LADWP's Water System", which claimed, "All LADWP pump stations

13 remained operational during the fire, and water supply remained strong to the area."18

14 71. However, during a Board of Water and Power Commissioners meeting on January

15 28, 2025, LADWP's current chief of water operations, Anselmo Collins, said: "There was not

16 enough pressure in the pipes to provide what we call suction pressure for our pump to take that

17 water, lift it to a higher elevation. But as pressure dropped because of the high demands,

18 eventually those pumps were no longer able to pump water because the pressure was too low. The

19 tanks that were full at the beginning were dropping and while the pumps were still operational, the

20 pumps could not keep up with the demand. There was more water leaving the tanks than we could

21 physically put into the tanks because the demand was so great…."19

22

23 16
Id.
17
24 Id.
18
25 https://www.ladwpnews.com/january-23-2025-update-ladwps-windstorm-and-wildfire-
response/#:~:text=JANUARY%2023%2C%202025%2C%20UPDATE%3A%20LADWP'S%20W
26 INDSTORM%20AND%20WILDFIRE%20RESPONSE,-
January%2023%2C%202025&text=LADWP%20crews%2C%20joined%20by%20mutual,and%2
27 0repair%20broken%20power%20poles.
19
28 https://ladwp-jtti.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 32
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 72. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Collins' statements to the Board of Water

2 and Power Commissioners refute LADWP's own press release issued just five days earlier that all

3 of its pumps remained operational during the fire and that the water supply remained strong.

4 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this is yet another example of LADWP's campaign of

5 misinformation to the public concealing its own failures.

6 73. In an interview with the L.A. Times, Collins admitted that LADWP had a plan to

7 shut off the water to adjacent neighborhoods such as Brentwood to increase the water pressure to

8 the Pacific Palisades but ultimately decided not to move forward with the plan. "We had a plan,

9 but we did not execute on the plan," Collins said.20

10 74. On information and belief, there was no other plan to rectify the lack of water

11 pressure in the supply system, resulting in dry fire hydrants and empty water tanks, leaving

12 firefighters and homeowners with virtually no water to fight the fire and destroying the Pacific

13 Palisades community, an inherent risk of draining the Santa Ynez Reservoir. The LADWP has

14 recognized that the LADWP's reservoirs, storage tanks and fire hydrants will be used for

15 firefighting efforts during wildfires.

16 75. LAFD Captain Kevin Easton was part of a structure protection team assigned to

17 protect homes in Palisades Highlands on January 7th. After midnight, the fire hydrants that were

18 being used to fight the fire ran dry. "Completely dry – couldn't get any water out of it", said

19 Captain Easton. As reported by the N.Y. Times, "Even on Wednesday afternoon – hours after the

20 hydrants had gone dry – there was still no water. Houses in the Highlands burned, becoming part

21 of more than 5,000 structures destroyed by the Palisades fire so far." "By Thursday evening,

22 Kristin M. Crowley, the chief of the Los Angeles Fire Department, said firefighters had stopped

23 tapping into the hydrants altogether. 'Right now, we're not utilizing the hydrants,' Chief Crowley

24 said."21

25

26 content/uploads/sites/3/2025/01/03123125/Remarks-by-LADWP-Executives-about-Wind-and-
Wildfire-Response-January-2025.pdf
27
20
Id.
28 21
ROBERTSON &
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/los-angeles-fire-water-hydrant-failure.html
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 33
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 76. Rick Caruso, a real estate developer who served two previous terms as President of

2 the LADWP, relied upon a team of private firefighters with their own water tenders, to protect his

3 outdoor shopping mall, The Palisades Village, as well as some nearby homes. On January 7th at

4 approximately 11:11 p.m., Mr. Caruso was interviewed live on Fox 11 News. "There's no water in

5 the Palisades. There's no water coming out of the fire hydrants," Caruso said. "This is an absolute

6 mismanagement by the City. It’s not the firefighters' fault but it's the City." "If you don't have

7 water, you can't put out fires."22

8 77. On information and belief, LADWP had notice of water pressure problems in the

9 Pacific Palisades no later than August 2024 and as early as 2021,, when residents reported water

10 pressure problems to LADWP and LADWP did not act reasonably to construct, design and

11 maintain this water supply system.

12 78. On information and belief, Defendants water supply system failed during the

13 Palisades Fire, and this failure was a substantial factor in causing damage to the Plaintiffs'

14 properties.

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 22
ROBERTSON &
http://www.foxla.com/video/1573156
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 34
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 79. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the first waterdrop from an LAFD

2 helicopter occurred around 10:40 a.m. on January 7th and thereafter helicopters were forced to fly

3 to far-away helipads in Malibu and elsewhere to refill their water tanks before returning to the fire

4 to drop their loads of water. As a result, Plaintiffs allege that aerial firefighting was unable to

5 contain the spread of the fire. By approximately 2:00 p.m. on January 7th, the fire had burned into

6 residential neighborhoods. Ground-based firefighters applied water from hydrants, but by 2:30

7 p.m. the water level in the Trailer Tank began to "plummet".

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 35
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14 80. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by approximately 5:00 p.m., the fire had
15 burned southward into the Marquez Knolls neighborhood and the Marquez Knolls water storage

16 tank was empty. Aerial firefighting efforts were discontinued at approximately 7:00 p.m. for the

17 night due to strong winds.

18 81. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by approximately 5:00 p.m., low water
19 pressure was reported in the fire hydrant adjacent to 1408 Lachman Lane in the Marquez Knolls.

20 / / /

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 36
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 82. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that despite the scope and scale of the Palisades

20 Fire, where water was available to firefighters, they were able to save structures. One example of

21 this was the private developer, Rich Caruso, who brought in private firefighters and water tenders

22 to supply water to protect his Palisades Village development when LADWP's fire hydrants ran

23 dry. The map below illustrates that although the homes and businesses all around Palisades

24 Village burned to the ground, Caruso's development was saved because they had an independent

25 water supply from hired water tenders.

26 / / /

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 37
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 38
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 THE SANTA YNEZ RESERVOIR AND PALISADES
2 RESERVOIR, CRITICAL WATER RESOURCES FOR THE
3 PALISADES, WERE EMPTY DURING THE PALISADES FIRE
4 83. Plaintiffs are also informed and believe that LADWP's Santa Ynez Reservoir was

5 drained and out-of-service during the Palisades Fire and that this failure was the result of LADWP's

6 decision to forgo proper and reasonable inspection, maintenance and repair of the reservoir's floating

7 cover as a cost savings decision. The disastrous result was that fire hydrants ran dry during the critical

8 first twelve hours of the firefight, which was an inherent risk of LADWP's "wait until it breaks"

9 maintenance policy. LADWP's decision to forgo maintenance of the Santa Ynez Reservoir was a

10 substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer the losses alleged herein and specifically below.

11 84. The Santa Ynez Reservoir, a 117-million-gallon water storage complex that is part of

12 the Palisades water supply system was empty at the time of the Palisades Fire erupted, leaving

13 firefighters with only 2.5% of the Palisades' total water supply to fight the fire. The Santa Ynez

14 Reservoir was built to provide a critical public use – fire protection. Indeed, to accommodate growth

15 in Pacific Palisades, the LADWP built the Santa Ynez Reservoir in Santa Ynez Canyon, as well as a

16 pumping station “to increase fire protection,” as the LADWP’s then-chief water engineer, Gerald W.

17 Jones, told the Los Angeles Times in 1972. Such public use concerns the whole community in Pacific

18 Palisades and surrounding areas, as distinguished from a particular number of individuals.

19 85. Further, according to the LADWP’s Dam/Reservoir Emergency Manual, the “LADWP

20 will maintain water supply to the distribution system for fire suppression and customer needs." Further,

21 the LADWP’s Critical Infrastructure Manual provides: "A failure of one critical infrastructure can

22 potentially have a domino effect causing other critical infrastructures to fail as well. . . A prolonged

23 interruption and a delayed recovery response to critical infrastructures in the City of Los Angeles will

24 pose a significant threat to the health, safety, and property of its residents." The LADWP thus knew

25 about the significant risk wildfires posed in the event of ineffective infrastructure management,

26 delayed repairs, unsafe equipment, and/or aging infrastructure decades before the Palisades Fire. The

27 reservoirs were a vital necessity to the public.

28 86.
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 39
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 87. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LADWP's Wildfire Mitigation Plan

2 specifically states that its reservoirs are available for use during wildfire events.

3 "The Water System also has water storage tanks and reservoirs that are available for use during
wildfire events. Should the need arise, LADWP’s crews are available to provide support in
4 water distribution system operations related to firefighting efforts. There are formal agreements
with LAFD and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACoFD) on the use of LADWP’s
5
tanks, reservoirs, and helipads within the Los Angeles Metro and Aqueduct areas as well as
6 over 60,000 fire hydrants citywide that are available to support fire-fighting efforts."23

7 88. But, when that public use became most needed on January 7, 2025, the Santa Ynez
8 Reservoir was empty, having been drained in April of 2024 awaiting repairs to its floating membrane

9 cover. The blue arrow in the image below depicts the location of the Santa Ynez Reservoir and the red

10 arrow depicts the location of the suspected origin of the Palisades Fire.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21 89. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP's Operations, Maintenance, and

22 Monitoring Plan (OMMP) required LADWP to perform annual underwater inspections of the

23 floating cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir to inspect it for damage, tears and leaks. However,

24 Plaintiffs allege that LADWP violated its own OMMP by ignoring this inspection schedule. In

25 fact, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the last underwater inspection performed on the Santa

26 Ynez Reservoir floating cover was done in 2021.

27

28 23
ROBERTSON &
https://www.ladwp.com/who-we-are/power-system/power-reliability/wildfire-mitigation-plan
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 40
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 90. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that the State of California's regulators

2 required LADWP to follow the guidelines published in the "Geomembrane Floating Covers and

3 Liners" Manual of Water Supply Practices, published by the American Water Works Association

4 (commonly referred to as the "M25" Manual). This M25 Manual recommends "A detailed

5 inspection on the floating cover should be performed on a monthly basis, at a minimum" to check

6 for holes and tears in the cover. This manual further recommends that during the monthly detailed

7 inspection, the inspector should perform the following work:

8 a) Traverse the floating cover at a maximum of 25-foot intervals, ensuring all shop and

9 field seams are inspected;

10 b) Check all hatches, vents, and surface water collection areas along with the overall

11 surface of the floating cover for accumulation of debris, surface water, and signs of

12 leakage;

13 c) mark all holes and tears that are found. Patch damaged areas utilizing closed-cell repair

14 floats to maintain a gap between the finished water and the floating cover area under

15 repair.

16 d) Note all comments on the inspection checklist including the type and location of all

17 repairs made, equipment maintenance, and cleaning. Sign and date the checklist.

18 91. Further, the M25 Manual recommends, "Underwater inspection by divers or ROVs

19 are usually performed at least annually, or more frequently if necessary, to investigate concerns

20 regarding damage to the floating cover or equipment." The manual recommends the following

21 inspections be performed during these underwater inspections:

22 a) Inspect and document floating cover conditions, at reservoir inlets and outlets, valves

23 and gates, grillages and floating cover support structures, and surface water collection

24 throughs;

25 b) Compare documentation taken to previously recorded video and/or photos on file;

26 c) Prepare a written report detailing findings, including video and/or photos, with specific

27 maintenance recommendations.

28 92. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, based upon documents produced by LADWP in
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 41
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 response to California Public Records Act (CPRA) requests, that John Kemmerer, Regulatory

2 Affairs and Consumer Protection, Water Quality Division, of LADWP wrote an internal email,

3 dated November 19, 2024, which made the following stunning admissions:

4 "During our meeting yesterday we discussed seeking DDW's approval to change our
commitment for underwater inspections of reservoirs with floating covers. As discussed and as
5 noted below, the OMMPs for these reservoirs state that underwater inspections will be done
'at least once a year'. We'd like to revise this to once every three years (two per year).
6

7 Based on past practice, we have been doing less than two per year. Our 2022 and
2023 floating cover annual reports to DDW note that none were done in either year. We did
8 one in 2021 (Santa Ynez), one in 2024 (Franklin) and plan to do at least one in 2025 (Eagle
Rock)." (emphasis added).
9
93. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the floating cover on the Santa Ynez
10

11 Reservoir was defective and prone to tears, and despite a history of tears in the cover, LADWP

12 failed to perform detailed monthly inspections or annual underwater inspections of the floating

13 cover to check for damage and tears. Specifically, plaintiffs are informed and believe that a tear in

14 the floating cover occurred in early 2022 and LADWP hired the contractor which originally

15 installed the cover, Layfield USA Corporation, to perform repairs in May of 2022. According to

16 records obtained through the CPRA, plaintiffs are informed and believe that a 36-inch tear in the

17 floating cover was discovered in April of 2022 by LADWP. LADWP issued a purchase order to

18 Layfield on May 17, 2022 to repair that tear. On April 27, 2022, LADWP began draining the

19 Santa Ynez Reservoir in preparation for performing this repair. Plaintiffs are informed and believe

20 that once drained, LADWP discovered that the size of the actual tear was 6 feet long, the full

21 extent of which was not visible until the reservoir had been drained because LADWP had not

22 performed the required monthly detailed inspections or annual underwater inspection of the cover.

23 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the repair to the tear in the floating cover was completed

24 and LADWP began refilling the Santa Ynez Reservoir on June 16, 2022 and that the reservoir was

25 placed in full service on July 28. 2022, or three months after the tear was originally discovered.
94. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on January 16, 2024, LADWP's Water
26

27 Operations staff discovered another tear in the floating cover. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that

28 this tear was not discovered because LADWP had performed the required monthly detailed
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 42
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 inspections or annual underwater inspections, but rather because workers noticed that rain pumps

2 (intended to pump off rain water that accumulated on top of the cover) were continuously running

3 because water beneath the cover was leaking through a tear onto the surface of the cover. According

4 to an internal email, dated February 1, 2024, "Water Operation's Reservoir Maintenance crews will

5 perform the repairs," and a plan to drain the 56 million gallons of the water then stored in the

6 reservoir was made in order to repair the torn cover. However, plaintiffs are informed and believe

7 that the tear continued to propagate in size over time. On February 13, 2024, LADWP performed an

8 aerial inspection of the reservoir and discovered that the tear was actually hundreds of feet long as

9 shown in the photo below.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27 95. Based upon this aerial inspection, an LADWP Construction and Maintenance

28 Supervisor sent an email on February 13, 2024 saying, "I would say that a tear that magnitude is
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 43
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 outside of our expertise and capabilities." That same day, LADWP contacted Layfield requesting a

2 quote to repair the tear and asked, "If possible, we would like to stop the propagation of the tear.

3 Would you happen to have any tools/products you can recommend to stop the tear from opening

4 more? We are thinking of making a hole punch at the end of the tear to slow it down. Does that

5 seem feasible? If so, how big should the hole be?"

6 96. However, plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP failed to perform any

7 interim repair to stop the propagation of the tear, which only continued to worsen over time.

8 97. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP began draining the Santa Ynez

9 Reservoir on or about February 27, 2024 of its 56 million gallons of water, which was discharged

10 into the Pacific Ocean.

11 98. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Layfield submitted a proposal to repair the

12 tear in the cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir on February 27, 2024.

13 99. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in March of 2024, LADWP began to plan to

14 refill the Palisades Reservoir at the top of Chautauqua Boulevard, which had been out of service

15 since July 2013, as an alternate water supply source for the Palisades while the Santa Ynez

16 Reservoir was undergoing repairs. However, shortly after LADWP began preparing to refill the

17 Palisades Reservoir, which has a concrete cover, leaks and structural concerns were discovered by

18 LADWP. In a March 29, 2024 email, an LADWP manager of property management stated, "About

19 #2, looks like Palisades Res is off the table since Civil Structural deemed the roof unsafe and

20 employees shouldn't be inside. We don't know what Water Control's Plan B looks like." Plaintiffs

21 are informed and believe that LADWP had no "Plan B" to provide the Palisades with a backup

22 source of water storage while the Santa Ynez Reservoir was drained for repairs to the cover.

23 100. On April 2, 2023, LADWP reported in their Water Quality Control Minutes that the

24 Santa Ynez Reservoir "is verified empty" and that "crews will prepare for floating cover assessment

25 and repair."

26 101. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on April 4, 2024, LADWP estimated the size

27 of the tear in the floating cover was 120 feet in length. On April 9, 2024, LADWP reported that the

28 size of the tear was 162 feet 6 inches in length. Still, LADWP had done nothing to stop the
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 44
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 propagation of the size of the tear three months after the tear was first discovered.

2 102. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on April 17, 2024, Layfield submitted its

3 proposal to LADWP to repair the tear in the cover.

4 103. Despite the decision in March of 2024 that the Palisades Reservoir was structurally

5 unsound and could not be put back into service temporarily as a "Plan B" while the Santa Ynez

6 Reservoir was drained for repairs, inexplicably in June of 2024 LADWP issued an internal email

7 from its Water Operations Division stating:

8 "The Pacific Palisades Reservoir will be returned to service after being out of
service for over a decade. The reservoir is currently being cleaned with an
9 inlet/outlet line modification. Placing the reservoir into service was necessary,
especially during the summer months, as the Santa Ynez Reservoir is out of service
10 due to a major tear on its floating cover. A contract is currently being implemented
for the repair of the tear."
11

12 104. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this statement was false, as LADWP had

13 previously deemed the Palisades Reservoir unsafe months earlier and no contract had been

14 "implemented" to repair the tear in the cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir. Indeed, as alleged infra,

15 that contract would not be awarded to Layfield until November 21, 2024.

16 105. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LADWP continued to publish these

17 false statements to regulators, knowing them to be untrue. Specifically, on June 6, 2024, John

18 Kemmerer, Regulatory Affairs and Consumer Protection of LADWP's Water Quality Division, sent

19 an email to members of the California Water Board stating:

20 "As noted during our Project Status meeting last month, LADWP is looking to put
the Pacific Palisades Reservoir back into service to address potential water supply
21 shortfalls due to the Santa Ynez Reservoir begin out of service. There is now
interest in putting this Reservoir back into service as soon as possible. Pacific
22 Palisades Reservoir would potentially remain in service until repairs to the cover of
the Santa Ynez Reservoir are completed, which may be until approximately
23 November, 2024."

24 106. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that although LADWP had already received

25 Layfield's repair proposal in February of 2024, LADWP decided to put the repair work out for

26 competitive bids on June 20, 2024. Although four bidders initially expressed interest, Layfield was

27 the only contractor which actually submitted a bid to perform the repairs. Results of the bid were

28 published on July 11, 2024. However, LADWP did not issue a purchase order to Layfield to
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 45
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 perform the repairs until November 21, 2024.

2 107. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on August 8, 2024, a Webex meeting was

3 held between various LADWP engineers and property managers the following decision was made:

4 "Due to safety concerns with entry into the reservoir to perform any repairs and the
uncertainty of any repair methods, it was agreed to operate the system without the Pacific
5 Palisades Reservoir while the Santa Ynez Reservoir is out of service. Management
concurrence is requested."
6

7 108. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on August 13, 2024, LADWP sent and

8 email to Layfield stating, "We are pleased to announce that the Los Angeles Department of

9 Water and Power has awarded the Bid for REPAIR, FLOATING COVER, SANTA YNEZ

10 RESERVOIR, to your company, Layfield USA Corporation." The email also asked Layfield to

11 submit the required performance, labor and material bond forms within 30 days. Plaintiffs are

12 informed and believe that on September 10, 2024, Layfield submitted the required bond forms to

13 LADWP.

14 109. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on October 17, 2024, LADWP Property

15 Management sent an email to LADWP's Supply Chain Services, stating:

16 "I know we rushed Layfield to return the bonds back to us quickly but haven't heard
anything since then. Has there been any progress on getting the purchase order? It's been
17 later that we expected to receive the purchase order and we're hoping to get started on the
repair as soon as possible."
18
110. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP issued a purchase order to
19
Layfield for the repair of the tear in the floating cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir on November
20
21, 2024, or 10 months after the tear was first discovered by LADWP. However, on November 25,
21
2024, Layfield notified LADWP that it didn't have a crew available to perform the repairs until
22
the end of January 2025. In response, LADWP decided to push the start of the repairs to the week
23
of March 10, 2025 in order to have time to drain and wash the cover before repairing it.
24
111. On January 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire erupted in the Palisades Highlands a year after
25
the tear in the cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir had been discovered by LADWP and nine months
26
after the reservoir had been emptied. Unlike the 2022 tear where LADWP drained, repaired the tear
27
and refilled the reservoir within three months, LADWP inexplicably failed to repair the 2024 tear
28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 46
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 more than a year after it was first discovered and made no provision for a backup source of water

2 supply to Pacific Palisades in the event of a wildfire.

3 112. On the morning of January 8, 2025, the second day of the Palisades Fire, Andrea

4 Yip, a property manager in LADWP's Water Operations, sent an email to Layfield at 8:52 a.m.

5 stating:

6 "Our management has reprioritized the repair of this reservoir and would like it to happen
sooner due to the recent fire in the Pacific Palisades. What is the earliest date your crews
7 would be available to be on site for repairs."
8
Of course, the entire Pacific Palisades was on fire and being consumed by the worst conflagration
9
in the City's history when this email was sent.
10
113. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that hours later on January 8th, Andrew Yip was
11
asked to provide a timeline of the Santa Ynez Floating Cover Repair to her supervisors. Plaintiffs
12
are informed and believe that Ms. Yip sent her original timeline to her supervisors at 12:34 p.m.
13
Shortly thereafter, Ms. Yip attempted to recall that email. At 4:52 p.m., Ms. Yip sent a revised
14
timeline of the Santa Ynez Reservoir cover repair with the title "(before any changes as a result of
15
the fires)." Plaintiffs are informed and believe that by this time, LADWP was in full damage
16
control mode.
17
114. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at 4:16 pm. on January 8, 2025, Dawn
18
Cottrell of LADWP sent an email to Ms. Yip asking for information about the status of the repair
19
project to the Santa Ynez Reservoir. In that email, Ms. Cottrell stated:
20
"I reached out to Emmanuel Reynoso regarding the status of the Santa Ynez Reservoir but
21 he is out until 2/4. Do you have any information on it? I understand it was drained last year
for repair work. Can you provide an update? Do you know if the community was notified
22 about the work? We need this as soon as possible. I understand it has to do with our current
Palisades/fire response"
23

24
115. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in response, Ms. Yip sent an email back to
25
Ms. Cottrell at 4:20 p.m. on January 8th, stating:
26
"Yes it is still out of service. We recently got a contractor on board to perform repairs, which
27 was scheduled in the coming months. The start date was still pending so the community was
not notified yet."
28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 47
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 116. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the floating cover on the Santa Ynez

2 Reservoir was defective and prone to tears, which occurred in 2022 and again in 2024. Plaintiffs

3 are further informed and believe that LADWP's failure to perform detailed monthly inspections

4 and annual underwater inspections as required in its OMMP, state regulations and industry

5 guidelines resulted in LADWP's failure to detect these tears in their incipient stages when they

6 could have been repaired without the need to drain the reservoir. The failure to timely and regularly

7 conduct detailed monthly inspections and annual underwater inspections of the floating cover on the

8 Santa Ynez Reservoir caused the reservoir to be drained in 2024, thereby eliminating a critical water

9 source for the Pacific Palisades established decades earlier for fire protection. The destruction and

10 damage of the Plaintiffs' properties was the "inescapable or unavoidable consequence" of draining

11 the Santa Ynez Reservoir because fire hydrants ran dry during the critical early hours of fighting the

12 fire. Plaintiffs allege that removing this critical water source from the fire hydrant system in the

13 Palisades was a substantial factor in causing the damage and destruction of the Plaintiffs' properties.

14 Had LADWP followed its own OMMP, state regulations and industry guidelines for the inspection

15 and repair of the floating cover, the tear that LADWP discovered in January of 2024 could have

16 been discovered earlier in its incipient stage when a repair could have been performed in accordance

17 with the M25 Manual's guidelines without the need to drain the reservoir.

18 117. LADWP's decision to ignore the requirements to perform annual underwater

19 inspections of the Santa Ynez Reservoir resulted in the need to drain the entire reservoir in 2024

20 and remove from Pacific Palisades 97.5% of the water storage capacity available for firefighting.

21 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP made a policy decision to benefit from the cost

22 savings from declining to pursue a reasonable maintenance program for the cover of the Santa

23 Ynez Reservoir. This "wait until it breaks" plan of maintenance to save on the cost of properly

24 inspecting, repairing or replacing the cover resulted in fire hydrants running dry during the fire,

25 which was an inherent risk posed by LADWP's chosen maintenance plan. See, City of Oroville v.

26 Superior Court (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1091.

27 118. LADWP made the deliberate and conscious decision to forgo annual underwater

28 inspections and timely repair of the Santa Ynez Reservoir, leaving it drained and unusable for over a
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 48
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 year before the fire, all as a “cost-saving” measure. In particular, LADWP failed to meet its own target

2 metrics to inspect, assess, and remediate these issues. According to the Los Angeles Times,

3 “[LADWP] policy calls for minor repairs to the [Santa Ynez Reservoir] cover to be addressed ‘within

4 48 hours of discovery’.” These policies reflect urgency: “Make repairs ASAP as directed by the

5 engineer.” The LADWP Critical Infrastructure Manual further mandates that the LADWP “[e]stablish

6 alternate water supply as needed” and “[m]ake necessary service repairs to restore water service." The

7 LADWP made a choice to decline to pursue reasonable maintenance and repair programs for the

8 reservoir.

9 119. On Friday, January 10, 2025, California Governor Gavin Newsom ordered an

10 independent investigation of the LADWP over the loss of water pressure and deliberate shut down of

11 the Santa Ynez Reservoir by the LADWP, calling it “deeply troubling.” The Governor further

12 acknowledged that the loss of water pressure “likely impaired” the ability of firefighters to protect

13 homes and evacuation corridors in Pacific Palisades. Further, former LADWP manager, Martin

14 Adams, an expert on the Los Angeles water supply system, confirmed that water pressure in Pacific

15 Palisades would have “lasted longer” had the Santa Ynez Reservoir been operable. Since the fire, there

16 has been no information released to the public about the status of this investigation, who is leading it

17 and when the results may be released.

18 120. Gus Corona, the business manager of IBEW Local 18, the employee union for the

19 LADWP, condemned the delay in repairing the cover. Mr. Corona told the Los Angeles Times; “It’s

20 completely unacceptable that this reservoir was empty for almost a year for minor repairs.” Mr. Corona

21 further added: “This work should have been done in-house, and they shouldn’t have depended on a

22 contractor to do it; I truly believe it’s something that could have been avoided.”

23 121. Los Angeles Fire Department Captain, Erik Scott acknowledged that the lack of water

24 impacted the ability to fight the fire, explaining that there were “challenges with water pressure while

25 battling the Pacific Palisades fire” and that water “pressure wasn’t quite what we needed, and so it

26 affected some fire hydrants.” (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fire-hydrants-ran-dry-extreme-demand-

27 pacific-palisades/).

28 122. Further, Mark Pestrella, director of Los Angeles County Public Works, said the hydrant
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 49
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 system was “not designed to fight wildfires,” (https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/ california-

2 wildfires/palisades-fire-firefighters-water-pressure/3597877/). The LADWP deliberately designed and

3 maintained this water supply system, despite it being located in a fire-prone area. In the last 90 years, for

4 example, more than thirty (30) wildfires have scorched parts of neighboring Malibu

5 (https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-me-malibu-wildfire-history/), the most recent being the Franklin

6 Fire, which ignited on December 9, 2024. The Woolsey Fire, which started on November 8, 2018, burned

7 96,949 acres of land in Malibu, destroyed 1,643 structures, killed three (3) people, and prompted the

8 evacuation of more than 295,000 people.

9 123. Other government officials have acknowledged the deficiencies of the water supply

10 system, noting that “the storage tanks that hold water for high-elevation areas like the Highlands, and

11 the pumping systems that feed them, could not keep pace with the demand as the fire raced from one

12 neighborhood to another.” (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/09/us/los-angeles-fire-water-hydrant-

13 failure.html). On information and belief, this would not have been needed if the Santa Ynez Reservoir

14 had been available.

15 124. Upmanu Lall, director of the Water Institute at Arizona State University, attributed the

16 lack of water availability and water pressure to the closing of the Santa Ynez Reservoir. Professor Lall

17 determined that without water from the reservoir, fire fighters had to primarily rely on water tanks, which

18 were not designed to fight such a large fire. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v =lV0eCYZq-sU)

19 125. The alleged public purpose being served by draining the Santa Ynez Reservoir and

20 leaving it empty for nearly a year, according to the LADWP, was to seek contractor bids rather than

21 using in-house personnel to repair the Reservoir. This stated public purpose was far outweighed by the

22 substantial risk posed to Pacific Palisades by wildfires. The degree of damage that resulted from the

23 Palisades Fire far outweighed any alleged benefit that could have been realized by outsourcing and

24 delaying repairs to the Santa Ynez Reservoir. Plaintiffs’ damages are extremely severe and far exceed

25 the kind that are generally considered normal risks inherent in land ownership.

26 126. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that having a backup water storage tank for

27 firefighting helicopters to use when the Santa Ynez Reservoir was out of service was made known to

28 LADWP as far back as 2004 when LADWP first proposed installing the floating cover on the Santa
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 50
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Ynez Reservoir. Specifically, concerns were raised by LAFD officials about the danger of a wildfire

2 occurring while the reservoir was drained and out of service. At a Palisades Highlands Community

3 Meeting in November of 2004, Glenn Singley, LADWP's director of water engineering and technical

4 services, was asked by Paul Shakstad, chief pilot of LAFD's air operations, how emergencies such as

5 brush fires, would be handled while the cover was being constructed over the Santa Ynez Reservoir.

6 "When Singley was asked about how emergencies, such as brush fires, would be handled while the

7 improvements were being done, he replied that arrangements would be made to also use the

8 Chautauqua reservoir. That answer did not satisfy Paul Shakstad, chief pilot of L.A. Fire Department's

9 air operations, who pointed out 'grading needs to be done ' to accommodate the larger Erickson snorkel-

10 equipped firefighting helicopters at Chautauqua (on a ridge between Temescal Canyon and Rivas

11 Canyon). 'And it is absolutely imperative that we have an adequate water supply. We need a hydrant

12 and some kind of cistern,' which would allow a helicopter to fill up in less than two minutes. When

13 Singley offered to have a 3,000-gallon cistern placed on-site when necessary, Shakstad objected,

14 saying 'that would take too long.' He suggested instead that a storage tank be permanently stored there

15 with high-pressure pumps. Singley agreed and will meet with LAFD's air operations unit and Bob

16 Cavage of the Palisades community advisory committee in the next few weeks. The existing helipad

17 and hydrant at the Santa Ynez reservoir will be used for smaller helicopters."24

18 127. Despite dire warnings by the NWS of a “Particularly Dangerous Condition – Red Flag

19 Warning” of “critical fire weather” which had the potential for rapid fire spread and extreme fire

20 behavior, the LADWP was unprepared for the Palisades Fire on January 7, 2025 and had no backup

21 "Plan B" water storage facility available for firefighting helicopters to use.

22 128. On June 26, 2025, LADWP announced it had finally repaired the floating cover and

23 returned the Santa Ynez Reservoir to service. This announcement by LADWP came 18 months after

24 the tear in the cover was first discovered in January of 2024. In response to LADWP's press release,

25 L.A. City Councilmember Traci Park, who represents Pacific Palisades said, "While I'm glad it's now

26 back in service, the reservoir has been offline since early 2024, including on the one day in history it

27

28 24
ROBERTSON &
https://www.palipost.com/dwp-finalizes-local-reservoir-project/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 51
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 was needed most. Our water infrastructure must be emergency-ready, every day. Anything less puts

2 everything we hold dear at risk."25

3 THE EMPTY SANTA YNEZ AND PALISADES RESERVOIRS

4 FORCED WATER-DROPPING HELICOPTERS TO REFILL THEIR
5 TANKS MILES AWAY DURING THE CRITICAL INITIAL ATTACK
6 OF THE FIRE
7 129. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Santa Ynez Reservoir has a helipad with a

8 fire hydrant dedicated for use by LAFD water-dropping helicopters to land and refill their water

9 tanks in the event of a brush fire. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP has "formal

10 agreements" with LAFD for use of this reservoir specifically for firefighting purposes. However,

11 with the Santa Ynez Reservoir drained, the 117-million gallons of water supply, the hydrant at this

12 helipad could not be utilized during the Palisades Fire, forcing helicopters to fly miles away from the

13 fire zone to refill their water tanks in Malibu at L.A. County Fire Department's helipad "69 Bravo"

14 near Saddle Peak Road, and at L.A. County Fire Department's "Camp 8" at the top of Las Flores

15 Canyon Road in Malibu and other remote helipads, resulting in a substantial cause of the harm

16 alleged herein. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the straight-line one-way distance between

17 the Santa Ynez Reservoir and the Bravo 69 helipad is 3.4 miles. Plaintiffs are informed and believe

18 that the straight-line distance between the Santa Ynez Reservoir and the Camp 8 helipad is 4.2 miles.

19 Round trip flights to and from these remote helipads would double these distances.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 25
ROBERTSON &
https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2025-06-26/pacific-palisades-santa-ynez-reservoir
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 52
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 130. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that based upon an analysis of the water-dropping

2 helicopters' flight patterns on January 7th using flightaware.com, the four LAFD water-dropping

3 helicopters and 3 L.A. County Fire Department water-dropping helicopters which were used to

4 provide water drops within the fire perimeter between 10:35 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on January 7th spent

5 a total 6 hours and 25 minutes outside of Pacific Palisades to refill their water tanks because the

6 Santa Ynez Reservoir was empty. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this significant delay for

7 these helicopters to leave the Palisades Fire zone to refill their water tanks at remote helipads

8 allowed the fire to spread in a rapid and uncontrolled manner causing damage to the Plaintiffs.

9 131. As an example only, Plaintiffs provide the flight time analysis for one of LAFD's

10 water-dropping helicopters (call sign "FIRE1") below:

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 53
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 132. As an example only, Plaintiffs provide the flight time analysis for one of L.A.

2 County Fire Department's water-dropping helicopters (call sign "Copter11") below:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
133. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that had the Palisades Reservoir (also
23
known as the Chautauqua Reservoir) been filled while the Santa Ynez Reservoir was out-of-service,
24
its helipad could have been used to refill water-dropping helicopters without the need for them to fly
25
to remote helipads outside of the Palisades on January 7th.
26
///
27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 54
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 134. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LADWP's press release stating,

2 "Water pressure in the system was lost due to unprecedented and extreme water demand to fight the

3 wildfire without aerial support" is false. (emphasis added). As alleged above, numerous water-

4 dropping helicopters engaged in "aerial support" to fight the fire. However, because of the lack of

5 water supply in LADWP's system in the Palisades, these water-dropping helicopters were forced to

6 fly miles away from the fire to fill their water tanks, thus losing critical hours to fight the fire.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 135. As the fire damage map below illustrates, the Palisades Reservoir and helipad is
23 located immediately upslope from the "Alphabet Streets" where 95% of the homes were destroyed

24 by the fire. The structures marked in red indicate destroyed homes. The blue star indicates the

25 location of the Palisades (Chautauqua) Reservoir and helipad.

26 / / /

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 55
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
LADWP FAILED TO DE-ENERGIZE ITS AGING ELECTRICAL
20
SYSTEM BEFORE AND DURING THE PALISADES FIRE
136. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that in 2010, LADWP proposed a power pole
21
replacement project to replace approximately 220 aging wood power poles with steel poles
22
between Mullholland Drive, along the Temescal Fire Road to above The Summit neighborhood
23
in Palisades Highlands. In a press release, LADWP admitted that "The current wood poles were
24
installed between 1935 -1955 and are past their useful service life. The new steel poles are more
25
resistant to high wind and fire threats."26
26

27
26
28 https://pacpalicc.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Power-Pole-Replacement-fact-sheet-
ROBERTSON &
FINAL.pdf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 56
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 137. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the Topanga State Park Alignment portion

2 of this project proposed to replace 210 wood structures (typically 2 poles per structure) supporting

3 the Royal Monte-Grande1 34.5 kV sub-transmission line. The proposal was to replace the

4 existing aging wood poles with 63 new steel poles, each 120 feet tall with an average diameter of

5 four feet. The new poles would follow the alignment of the existing wood poles along the

6 Temescal Fire Road and terminate near pole 369211M, approximately 0.75 miles northeast of

7 LADWP's Distribution Station 99 ("DS99") in the Palisades Highlands. The overhead line would

8 transition to an underground cable near Terminal Pole 369211M.27

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 27
ROBERTSON &
https://www.ladwp.com/sites/default/files/documents/Sylmar_Ground_Return_Initial_Study.pdf
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 57
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 138. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP started this project in 2019, but it

2 was halted when it was discovered that LADWP had bulldozed and destroyed hundreds of

3 endangered Braunton's milk vetch plants.28

4 139. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on Wednesday, January 8, 2025 while

5 investigating the origin and cause of the Palisades Fire, Plaintiffs' attorneys discovered that

6 Terminal Pole 369211M had snapped during the wind event, causing portions of the Royal Monte-

7 Grande 1 34.5kV powerlines to fall to the ground near the suspected origin of the Palisades Fire.

8 Below are photographs of the broken wood poles and downed powerlines above LADWP's

9 Temescal Water tank located above The Summit neighborhood in Palisades Highlands taken on

10 January 8, 2025.

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
28
28 https://www.latimes.com/environment/story/2019-07-31/endangered-plants-bulldozed-state-
ROBERTSON &
park-city-crews
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 58
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 59
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 60
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 140. When asked if these downed powerlines were energized on the day of the fire, LADWP

2 told a reporter from the Washington Post on January 12, 2025 that those lines had been abandoned and

3 de-energized for the past five years and were not energized at the time of the fire.29

4 141. Incredibly, LADWP never publicly corrected this statement until months later when

5 LADWP's attorney finally admitted to Plaintiffs' counsel on March 20, 2025 (buried in a footnote on

6 the last page of a letter) the following stunning admission:

7 "You also asked about a statement in the Washington Post that the sub-transmission
line in the area was not energized. That statement was a result of a misunderstanding.
8 The line had been de-energized for several years before the fire, but as we said in our
prior correspondence, it was energized at the time the fire ignited. There were no faults
9
on the line around the time the fire ignited."30
10 142. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that on March 23, 2025, certain Plaintiffs filed a
11 complaint against LADWP alleging that the Royal Monte-Grande 1 34.5 kV line was not de-energized

12 after the Palisades Fire had started and that this energized line started a second ignition of the fire at

13 approximately 10:30 p.m. on January 7, 2025 near the location of the broken Terminal Pole 369211M

14 pictured above.31

15 143. In response to that lawsuit, LADWP issued a press release on March 25, 2025 denying
16 that this powerline was energized and stating, "The line was manually de-energized by opening

17 switches on the Encino side of the line around 2:15 p.m. on January 7, so the part of the line nearest

18 the suspected origin was not energized thereafter, including 10:30 p.m. that night."32

19 144. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP's claims that it had de-energized this
20 line were again false. Specifically, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that while LADWP manually

21 opened four pole top switches between its Distribution Station 122 (DS122) on the Encino side of the

22 Royal Monte-Grande1 line in the afternoon of January 7th, it never disabled the load interrupting

23 devices at DS99 on the Palisades side of the line. The result is that a portion of the line remained

24

25 29
https://www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2025/01/12/palisades-fire-origin-new-years-eve-fire/
26 30
Letter dated March 20, 2025 from LADWP's counsel, Nicholas Fram of Munger, Tolles & Olson,
LLP to Plaintiffs' attorney Alexander Robertson, IV of Robertson & Associates, LLP.
27
31
Morrissey v. LADWP, ____________________
28 32
ROBERTSON &
https://www.ladwpnews.com/ladwp-statement-regarding-palisades-fire-litigation/
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 61
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 energized, including that portion between DS99 (near the Santa Ynez Reservoir) and Terminal Pole

2 369211M above The Summit neighborhood. LADWP's claim that it had de-energized this line by no

3 later than 2:15 p.m. on January 7th is easily disproven by the numerous videos taken by its own

4 surveillance cameras mounted on the Temescal water tank that show that the lights were on in The

5 Summit neighborhood during the evening hours of January 7th. Further, LADWP's operator's log

6 shows no personnel entered DS99 between January 2 – January 12, 2025, further corroborating that

7 no LADWP personnel entered the building to disable any load interrupter device to de-energize the

8 Palisades-side of the Royal Monte-Grande1 line on January 7th.

9 145. This screenshot taken from LADWP's Temescal Trailhead1 surveillance camera

10 clearly shows that lights were on in the homes located in The Summit at 10:34 p.m. on January 7th

11 while the fire raged below near the bottom of Palisades Drive.

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
146. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at approximately 10:36 p.m., a large electrical
24
arcing event was captured by LADWP's Temescal Trailhead1 camera in the area between Terminal
25
Pole 369211M and the Temescal water tank.
26
147. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the screenshot from LADWP's Temescal
27
Trailhead1 camera at 10:34 p.m., two minutes before the arcing event, shows no fire activity between
28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 62
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Terminal Pole 369211M and the water tank.

10

11

12

13 148. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that two minutes later, at 10:36 p.m., a bright

14 flash or explosion is captured by the Temescal Trailhead1 camera occurring between Terminal

15 Pole 369211M and the water tank near the base of an LADWP power pole.33

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27
33
28 Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP's cameras record still images at 2-minute
ROBERTSON &
intervals.
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 63
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 149. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this arcing event was the result of

2 LADWP's failure to de-energize the Royal Monte-Grande1line during this high wind event, which

3 caused LADWP's energized powerlines to slap together ("line slap") or fall to the ground ("ground

4 fault"), igniting the vegetation below and causing a second ignition of the Palisades Fire.

5 150. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LADWP's electrical equipment

6 located at DS99 is outdated and antiquated and LADWP's failure to reasonably maintain the

7 equipment was a substantial cause of the harm to the Pacific Palisades community. For example,

8 DS99 is not equipped with electronic relays, but rather relies upon electromechanical relays which

9 do not record SCADA data or line faults. Instead, DS99 is equipped with fuses and Load

10 Interrupter Devices (LIDs).

11 151. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that LADWP attempted to, but failed to

12 de-energize its powerlines located in the Palisades Village and the surrounding neighborhoods

13 (e.g. Alphabet Streets, Via Bluffs, Huntington, etc.) during the firestorm. Specifically, LADWP

14 records show that a patrolman was ordered to de-energize Distribution Station 29 (DS29), located

15 on Sunset Boulevard in the center of Palisades Village, at 1:40 p.m. on January 7th. LADWP

16 records show that the patrolman did not arrive at DS29 until 6:03 p.m., or 4 hours and 23 minutes

17 after the request had been made. Records further reflect that the patrolman attempted to de-

18 energize the circuits inside DS29 at 6:18 p.m., but the "deadman" cord used to de-energize circuits

19 in an emergency didn’t work, and that "no circuits were de-energized." The patrolman then had to

20 evacuate DS-29 because the "fire is outside DS29". LADWP's records further show that on

21 January 29, 2025, nearly three weeks later, LADWP's patrolman went back into LADWP's

22 computer log and attempted to alter his entry made twenty-two days earlier to claim that he had

23 attempted to de-energize the circuits in DS29 at 1:47 p.m. instead of 6:18 p.m. Plaintiffs are

24 informed and believe that DS29 was constructed in 1936 and lacks modern electronic relays or

25 substation automation. Instead, it has electromechanical relays which are over fifty years old. The

26 image below shows the attempted alteration of LADWP's records to change the time when

27 LADWP's patrolman attempted to de-energize the circuits inside DS29.

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 64
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11
152. LADWP failed to de-energize its distribution and transmission electrical facilities,
12
which resulted in its overhead power lines arcing and power poles breaking sending energized power
13
lines falling to the ground into receptive fuel beds that ignited additional spot fires that rapidly spread
14
and merged together to create the urban conflagration known as the Palisades Fire.
15
153. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that because LADWP did not de-energize
16
its electrical circuits even after the Palisades Fire erupted, its distribution equipment throughout Pacific
17
Palisades experienced arcing and exploding transformers, sending showers of sparks and molten metal
18
raining down into homes, businesses and vegetation below which started additional spot fires that
19
accelerated the rapid spread of the Palisades Fire. Below are screenshots from just a sample of videos
20
taken by news media and eyewitnesses of these arcing events and spot fires caused by LADWP's
21
equipment:
22
///
23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 65
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 66
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 154. Further, LADWP's arcing power lines interfered with firefighter's efforts to suppress

2 the fire, as evidenced by this video showing a hand crew pulling off the fireline due to arcing power

3 lines above their heads:

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 155. Further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP's failure to de-energize its

17 distribution equipment resulted in pole fires, as depicted in this screenshot from an eyewitness video

18 taken on January 7, 2025 at 17015 Pacific Coast Highway at approximately 3:36 p.m. in front of the

19 Malibu Village mobile home park. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that shortly after this video

20 was taken, the entire mobile home park caught fire and burned to the ground as a result of this pole

21 fire.

22 / / /

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 67
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19 156. Plaintiffs also are informed and believe that LADWP's downed energized
20 distribution powerlines caused additional fires in Pacific Palisades on January 7, 2025. As just one

21 example, below are photographs of LADWP's downed powerlines which fell onto the guesthouse

22 of Donald and Lisa McCord, located at 15033 W. Sunset Blvd, Pacific Palisades on January 7,

23 2025. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these powerlines were energized when they fell onto

24 the McCord's guesthouse, which caused the fire that destroyed that structure. Below are photos of

25 LADWP's downed powerlines on the McCord's guesthouse.

26 / / /

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 68
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15
157. As a further example, Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that an LADWP
16
wood power pole snapped on January 7, 2025 causing energized distribution powerlines to fall
17
onto an apartment building located at 855 Via De La Paz, Pacific Palisades, causing the structure
18
to catch fire and burn to the ground. Below is a photograph of LADWP's snapped power pole and
19
downed conductors which Plaintiffs are informed and believe caused the damage to this building.
20
158. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these are just two examples of LADWP's
21
energized powerlines causing structures to catch fire on January 7, 2025 because LADWP failed
22
to de-energize their powerlines even after the Palisades Fire ignited in Topanga State Park during
23
extreme fire weather conditions.
24
///
25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 69
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22 159. Pushed by strong northeast winds, the Palisades Fire spread rapidly down canyon and
23 into heavily populated neighborhoods incinerating everything in its path. Residents were forced to

24 abandon their vehicles on Palisades Drive and run for their lives.

25 160. The Palisades Fire spread quickly through Pacific Palisades and then west along
26 Pacific Coast Highway into Malibu, pushed by strong Santa Ana winds later that evening on January

27 7, 2025 with wind gusts between 60-80 mph, low relative humidity and critical live fuel moisture

28 levels.
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 70
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 161. Over the following days, the fire spread rapidly and caused evacuations of tens of

2 thousands of residents and caused widespread power outages, as well as school and road closures.

3 162. LADWP had a duty to properly construct, inspect, maintain and operate its water

4 supply and its overhead electrical transmission and distribution systems in a manner that did not

5 create a dangerous condition as well as an inherent risk of fire and fire spread. The LADWP violated

6 these duties by knowingly designing, maintaining, servicing, repairing its reservoirs system and its

7 electrical transmission and distribution systems.

8 163. Had the LADWP acted responsibly, the damage caused by the Palisades Fire could

9 have been avoided.

10 164. Plaintiffs have suffered real and personal property damage, personal injuries, loss of

11 use of their homes, loss of income, business interruption, and emotional distress and seek fair

12 compensation for themselves in this case.

13 165. Plaintiffs have served tort claim notices with LADWP and CA STATE PARKS

14 consistent with Government Code §910, et seq. and their claims have either been expressly denied

15 or the time to respond to their claims has expired by operation of law.

16 OVERGROWN BRUSH ON CITY-OWNED VACANT LOTS

17 CAUGHT FIRE AND DESTROYED HOMES IN THE
18 CASTELLAMARRE SECTION OF PACIFIC PALISADES
19 166. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the CITY owns numerous vacant lots in

20 Pacific Palisades, including but not limited to 17919 Porto Marina Way, 17857 Porto Marina Way,

21 17863 Porto Marina Way, 17908 Castellammare Drive, 17916 Castellammare Drive, and 17945

22 Porto Marina Way in Pacific Palisades. Additionally, plaintiffs are further informed and believe

23 that the CITY owns a single-family home located at 17909 Porto Marina Way which had been

24 abandoned for several years prior to the fire and was in disrepair with overgrown brush on the

25 property on January 7, 2025.

26 167. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Plaintiff, Yelena Entin, repeatedly sent

27 emails to the CITY complaining about the CITY's lack of brush clearance on 17904, 17908 and

28 17916 Castellammare Drive beginning in December of 2023. In response to her complaints, on

ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 71
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 December 14, 2023, the LAFD Brush Clearance Unit responded to Yelena Entin telling her "the

2 inspector has already addressed these properties".

3 168. On September 15, 2024, Plaintiff Yelena Entin emailed Inspectors Almanza and

4 Sutton of the LAFD Brush Clearance Unit and complained that the above-referenced CITY-owned

5 lots had not been cleared of overgrown brush. On September 16, 2024, LAFD Inspector Sutton

6 emailed Plaintiff Yelena Entin stating:

7 "2 of the properties are privately owned. They have been cited each twice and are going
out to contract to be cleared by city contractors in 2 weeks from this Thursday. The other
8 two properties are city owned. They were contracted out cleared earlier this season in the
spring and have now some regrowth. I will see if we have funds to contract them out a 2nd
9 time this season but we are currently going through budget cuts."

10 169. On November 5, 2024, Plaintiff Yelena Entin emailed Inspector Sutton again and

11 stated:

12
"Hello Inspector Warren, I am following up on our emails below. I wanted to bring to your
13 attention that the brush was cut, but was not cleared. Therefore, there is currently cut dry
brush sitting on these two privately owned lots and I believe still poses a fire danger.
14 Please see photos attached. I hope that you can ask whoever cut it to comeback and clear
it."
15
Below is a photo which Yelena Entin attached to her email to Inspector Warren. The photo below
16
depicts the cut but uncleared brush that remained on the City-owned lot located at 17908
17
Castellammare Drive, Pacific Palisades just two months before it caught fire on January 7, 2025.
18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 72
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 170. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that at approximately 1:20 p.m. on January 7,

2 2025, embers from the Palisades Fire landed in overgrown brush on the CITY's vacant lot located

3 at 17908 Castellammare Drive and started a spot fire, which spread to the adjacent CITY-owned

4 lot at 17919 Porto Marina Way and to the vacant and abandoned house owned by the CITY located

5 at 17909 Porto Marina Way.

6 171. Below is a screenshot taken from a CCTV security camera which shows the beginning

7 of the spot fire burning on the CITY-owned vacant lot located at 17908 Castellammare Drive at

8 1:20 p.m. on January 7, 2025.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 73
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 172. Below is another screenshot from a CCTV security camera which shows that spot

2 fire growing and spreading on the CITY-owned lot located at 17908 Castellammare Drive at 1:21

3 p.m. on January 7, 2025.

10

11

12

13

14

15 173. Below is a screenshot from the CCTV security camera showing the CITY-owned

16 abandoned house at 17909 Porto Marina Way catching fire and burning at 2:43 p.m. on January 7,

17 2025. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that ember cast from this structure fire then caused

18 embers to spread to adjoining private properties resulting in the destruction and/or damage to

19 neighboring homes.

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 74
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 174. Below is a screenshot of the CCTV security camera showing the fire spreading to

2 the home and property located at 17884 Castellammare Drive.

10

11

12

13

14

15 175. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the screenshot from the CCTV security

16 camera below depicts the spot fire that started on the City-owned lots spreading to and burning

17 homes in the Castellammare section of the Palisades on the evening of January 7, 2025.

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 75
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 176. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the fire on these CITY-owned properties

2 spread uncontrolled to adjacent homes in the Castellammare section of the Palisades, including but

3 not limited to the homes owned by Plaintiff Yelena Entin, trustee of the Yelena Entin Living Trust

4 located at 17872 Castellammare Drive and the home of her parents, Boris and Alla Yeruhim,

5 located at 17854 Castellammare Drive, Pacific Palisades. Plaintiffs are further informed and

6 believe that the fire on these CITY-owned properties contributed to the overall spread of the fire

7 into other neighborhoods as well.

8 177. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the overgrown and/or cut brush which was

9 left in situ and not removed from these CITY-owned lots violated the CITY's own brush clearance

10 ordinance L.A.M.C. §57.4906.5.1, et seq., which provides:

11 "No person who has any ownership or possessory interest in, or control of, a parcel of land
shall allow to exist thereon any hazardous refuse or hazardous weeds, trees, or other
12 vegetation which by reason of proximity to a building or structure, constitutes a fire
hazard. For purposes of this section hazardous weeds, trees or other vegetation are defined
13 as weeds, trees or other vegetation which are in such a condition and location as to provide
a ready fuel supply to augment the spread or intensity of a fire."
14
178. Section 57.4906.5.1.1.1 further provides:
15
"VEGETATION WITHIN 100 FEET OF BUILDINGS
16
Remove from the property all dead trees, and maintain all weeds and other
17 vegetation at a height of no more than three inches, except as otherwise provided
therein, if such weeds or other vegetation are within 100 feet of a building or
18 structure located on such property or on adjacent property."

19 179. Further, Section 57.4906.5.2.1 makes a violation of the CITY's brush clearance

20 ordinances a public nuisance.

21 "The Council finds that uncontrolled or high weeds, brush, plant material and other
items prohibited under Sections 57.4906.5.1 through 57.4906.5.1.1.9 increase the
22 danger of fire and thus constitute a public nuisance."

23 180. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the CITY violated its own brush clearance

24 ordinances by allowing weeds and other vegetation to exist on the aforementioned CITY-owned

25 lots on January 7, 2025 in excess of three inches in height within 100 feet of structures, which

26 constituted a fire hazard and a ready fuel supply which augmented the spread and intensity of the

27 Palisades Fire in the Castellammare neighborhood of Pacific Palisades as well as contributing to

28 the overall spread of the fire into other neighborhoods as well.

ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 76
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 181. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that such violations by the CITY created a

2 dangerous condition of public property, that the aforementioned CITY-owned lots were in a

3 dangerous condition on January 7, 2025, that this dangerous condition created a reasonably

4 foreseeable risk of the kind of injury and damage which occurred during the Palisades Fire, and

5 that the negligent or wrongful conduct of the CITY's employees acting within the scope of their

6 employment created the dangerous condition. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the CITY had notice of

7 this dangerous condition for a long enough time to have protected against it and that Plaintiffs

8 Yelena Entin, Boris Yeruhim and Alla Yeruhim and others, were harmed and that the dangerous

9 condition was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs' harm.

10 182. Plaintiffs further allege that the aforementioned violations of the CITY's own

11 brush clearance ordinances constituted a public nuisance which caused damage to the Plaintiffs'

12 properties, including interference with the quiet use and enjoyment of their properties and

13 emotional distress.

14 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

15 By Plaintiffs For Inverse Condemnation (Powerlines) Against

16 Defendant LADWP and DOES 1-50

17 183. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set

18 forth herein.

19 184. On or about January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs were the owners of real property located

20 within Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

21 185. Prior to January 7, 2025, Defendant LADWP designed, installed, constructed, owned,

22 operated, used, controlled, supplied, and/or maintained the overhead transmission and distribution

23 electrical equipment which provided electricity to Pacific Palisades.

24 186. On or about January 7, 2025, as a direct, necessary and substantial result of the

25 inherent risks of LADWP’s intentional design, installation, construction, ownership, operation, use,

26 control, and/or maintenance for a public use of its overhead electrical transmission and distribution

27 power poles, conductors, transformers and associated equipment, LADWP's energized powerlines

28 arced and sparked during a foreseeable and forecasted wind event, causing its energized power lines
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 77
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 to ignite structures and flammable vegetation. LADWP's energized power lines arced, and

2 transformers exploded, causing additional spot fires which merged and created the urban

3 conflagration known as the Palisades Fire.

4 187. The damage to Plaintiffs’ properties was proximately and substantially caused by

5 Defendants’ actions in that Defendants’ design, installation, ownership, operation, use, supply,

6 maintenance, and/or control for public use of its overhead electrical transmission and distribution

7 equipment created an inherent risk of damage to private property and was a substantial cause of

8 damage to private property.

9 188. Plaintiffs have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or

10 destruction of their property, thus constituting a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs’ property by

11 Defendants without just compensation.

12 189. As a direct and legal result of the above-described damages to Plaintiffs’ property,

13 including loss of use and interference with access, enjoyment and marketability of real property, and

14 damage/destruction of personal property, Plaintiffs have been damaged in amounts according to

15 proof at trial.

16 190. Plaintiffs have incurred, and will continue to incur attorney’s, appraisal, and

17 engineering fees and costs because of Defendants’ conduct, in an amount that cannot yet be

18 ascertained, but which are recoverable in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1036.

19 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

20 By Plaintiffs For Inverse Condemnation (Water Supply System)

21 Against Defendant LADWP and DOES 1-50

22 191. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs above as though fully set

23 forth herein.

24 192. On or about January 7, 2025, Plaintiffs were the owners of real property located

25 within Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

26 193. Prior to January 7, 2025, Defendant LADWP designed, installed, constructed, owned,

27 operated, used, controlled, supplied, and/or maintained the Santa Ynez and Palisades Reservoirs,

28 and associated pumps, water storage tanks and pipelines which provided potable water and water for
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 78
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 the fire hydrants in Pacific Palisades.

2 194. LADWP's decision to ignore the requirements to perform detailed monthly

3 inspections and annual underwater inspections of the Santa Ynez Reservoir resulted in the need to

4 drain the entire reservoir in 2024 and remove from Pacific Palisades 97.5% of the water storage

5 capacity available for firefighting. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that LADWP made a policy

6 decision to benefit from the cost savings from declining to pursue a reasonable maintenance

7 program for the cover of the Santa Ynez Reservoir. This "wait until it breaks" plan of maintenance

8 to save on the cost of properly inspecting, repairing or replacing the cover resulted in fire hydrants

9 running dry during the fire, which was an inherent risk posed by LADWP's maintenance plan and

10 a substantial factor in causing the Plaintiffs' damages alleged herein. See, City of Oroville v.

11 Superior Court (2019) 7 Cal. 5th 1091

12 195. The damage to Plaintiffs’ properties was proximately and substantially caused by

13 Defendants’ actions in that Defendants’ design, installation, ownership, operation, use, supply,

14 maintenance, and/or control for public use of its water delivery systems.

15 196. Plaintiffs have not received adequate compensation for the damage to and/or

16 destruction of their property, thus constituting a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs’ property by

17 Defendants without just compensation.

18 197. As a direct and legal result of the above-described damages to Plaintiffs’ property,

19 including loss of use and interference with access, enjoyment and marketability of real property, and

20 damage/destruction of personal property, Plaintiffs have been damaged in amounts according to

21 proof at trial.

22 198. Plaintiffs have incurred and will continue to incur attorney’s, appraisal, and

23 engineering fees and costs because of Defendants’ conduct, in an amount that cannot yet be

24 ascertained, but which are recoverable in this action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1036.

25 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

26 By Plaintiffs For Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Powerlines)

27 Against Defendant LADWP, and DOES 1- 50

28 199. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 79
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 fully set forth herein.

2 200. California Government Code §835 states in pertinent part:

3 Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous
4 condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous
condition, that the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
5 which was incurred, and either:

6 (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
7 (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under
Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to prevent
8 against the dangerous condition.

9 201. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the LADWP's electrical overhead

10 powerlines, including but not limited to the Royal Monte-Grande-1 34.4 kV sub-transmission line

11 and the overhead distribution powerlines on the DS29 circuits, were in a dangerous condition on

12 January 7, 2025, because (1) they were left energized by LADWP during the foreseeable and

13 forecasted "Particularly Dangerous Situation" Red Flag Warning wind event and (2) because those

14 powerlines were uninsulated and when palm fronds and tree branches were blown into these

15 powerlines, or when the powerlines slapped together in the wind, or when the power lines made

16 contact with the ground, the powerlines arced and created sparks which fell onto structures and/or

17 into flammable vegetation igniting numerous fires in Pacific Palisades on January 7, 2025.

18 202. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these dangerous conditions caused the

19 injuries to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

20 203. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that this dangerous condition of

21 LADWP's powerlines created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury, which was

22 incurred, namely that an uninsulated and energized powerline contacted by a tree branch or by

23 another powerline (e.g. line slap) would cause sparks to fall to the ground which were capable of

24 igniting a wildfire and damaging the Plaintiffs' property.

25 204. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a negligent act or omission by an employee

26 of LADWP within the scope of his/her employment created the dangerous condition. LADWP

27 and its employees had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition in time to

28 have taken measures to protect against it. Specifically, the employees of LADWP knew or should
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 80
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 have known of the "Particularly Dangerous Situation" and "Extreme Fire Conditions" forecasted

2 by the NWS days prior to January 7, 2025 and that any vegetation which came into contact with

3 an uninsulated and energized powerline under such conditions would arc and spark and start a

4 dangerous wildfire. LADWP and its employees did not take measures to de-energize those

5 powerlines to protect against this dangerous condition.

6 205. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this dangerous condition was a substantial

7 factor in causing the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages herein alleged.

8
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
9
By Plaintiffs For Dangerous Condition of Public Property (Water Supply System)
10
Against Defendant LADWP, and DOES 1- 50
11
206. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though
12
fully set forth herein.
13
207. California Government Code §835 states in pertinent part:
14
Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous
15 condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous
condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous
16 condition, that the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
which was incurred, and either:
17

18 (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
19 (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under
Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to prevent
20 against the dangerous condition.

21 208. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the LADWP's water supply system,

22 including but not specifically limited to the Santa Ynez Reservoir, Palisades Reservoir, Westgate

23 Trunk Line and associated pumps, were in a dangerous condition on January 7, 2025, because (1)

24 LADWP had drained the Santa Ynez Reservoir thereby removing 117 million gallons of water

25 from being available to supply the fire hydrants in the Palisades Highlands without any interim

26 measures to replace that lost storage capacity of water or resulting loss of water pressure to the fire

27 hydrants in the event of a wildfire; (2) LADWP did not put the Palisades Reservoir back in

28 service while the Santa Ynez Reservoir was out of service to provide for additional water storage
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 81
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 in the event of a wildfire; (3) LADWP's aging 36 inch Westgate truck line and pumps were

2 defectively designed and constructed so that they were incapable of refilling the three water

3 storage tanks in the Palisades Highlands (the Temescal, Marquez Knolls and Trailer Tanks) during

4 a wildfire in order to prevent fire hydrants from running dry; (4) and that LADWP's defective

5 water system was inadequate to provide sufficient water volume and pressure to keep fire hydrants

6 from running dry in the event of a wildfire and to provide water for firefighting helicopters.

7 209. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these dangerous conditions caused the

8 injuries to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

9 210. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that this dangerous condition of

10 LADWP's water supply system created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury, which

11 was incurred, namely that fire hydrants would run dry and firefighters and homeowners would not

12 have an adequate water supply or water pressure to extinguish the fire.

13 211. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a negligent act or omission by an employee

14 of LADWP within the scope of his/her employment created the dangerous condition. LADWP

15 and its employees had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition in time to

16 have taken measures to protect against it. Specifically, the employees of LADWP knew or should

17 have known of the "Particularly Dangerous Situation" and "Extreme Fire Conditions" forecasted

18 by the NWS days prior to January 7, 2025 and that LADWP's defective water supply system was

19 inadequate to provide sufficient water volume and pressure to keep fire hydrants from running dry

20 in the event of a wildfire.

21 212. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this dangerous condition was a substantial

22 factor in causing the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages herein alleged.

23 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

24 By Plaintiffs For Public Nuisance (Water Supply System)

25 Against Defendant LADWP, and DOES 1- 50

26 213. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though

27 fully set forth herein.

28 214. LADWP owed a non-transferable, non-delegable duty to the public, including the
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 82
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 Plaintiffs, to conduct their business, particularly the maintenance and operation of their water

2 supply system, including but not limited to the San Ynez and Palisades Reservoirs, in a manner

3 which did not cause harm to the public welfare.

4 215. LADWP, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged herein, created a condition that

5 was harmful and dangerous to the health, safety and property of the public, including Plaintiffs,

6 and created a condition which resulted in fire hydrants running dry during the Palisades Fire,

7 which prevented firefighters and homeowners from extinguishing the fire, which interfered with

8 the Plaintiffs' quiet use and enjoyment of their property. This interference is both substantial and

9 unreasonable.

10 216. Plaintiffs do not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of

11 Defendants.

12 217. The Palisades Fire destroyed 6,837 homes and businesses, damaged another 973

13 structures, killed twelve (12) people, and caused injuries to 3 civilians and 1 firefighter. The

14 Palisades Fire, which was aggravated by the LADWP's lack of water to fight the fire, affected a

15 substantial number of people at the same time within the general public, including Plaintiffs, and

16 constituted a public nuisance under California Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and Public Resources

17 Code §§ 4170 and 4171.

18 218. The damaging effects of LADWP's creation of a fire hazard and the resulting

19 Palisades Fire are ongoing and affect the public at large.

20 219. As a direct and legal result of LADWP's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered harm that is

21 different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost the

22 occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their land, real and personal property, including

23 but not limited to diminution-in-value of their real property; and impairment of the ability to sell

24 their property; property exposed to toxic chemicals from smoke and soot and lingering smell of

25 smoke, soot, ash and dust in the air.

26 220. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of LADWP, Plaintiffs have suffered,

27 and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worry, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to

28 the interference with the occupancy, possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property.
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 83
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 221. A reasonable, ordinary person would be annoyed or disturbed by the conditions

2 caused by Defendants, and the resulting Palisades Fire.

3 222. Defendants’ conduct is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public,

4 including Plaintiffs, outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. There is little to no social

5 utility associated with causing wildfires that destroy the property of the Plaintiffs.

6 223. The unreasonable conduct of LADWP is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury,

7 and/or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs.

8 224. Defendants’ conduct set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning

9 of Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code §§ 4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil

10 Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action for public

11 nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs, because, as described above, it is

12 injurious and/or offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs unreasonably interferes with their

13 comfortable enjoyment of their property, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary

14 manner, of their property.

15 225. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to stop

16 continued violation of Public Resource Code §§ 4292 and 4293. Plaintiffs also seek an order

17 directing Defendants to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above.

18 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

19 By Plaintiffs For Public Nuisance (Powerlines) Against Defendant LADWP, and DOES 1- 50

20 226. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though

21 fully set forth herein.

22 227. LADWP owed a non-transferable, non-delegable duty to the public, including

23 Plaintiffs, to conduct their business, in particular the maintenance and operation of electrical

24
infrastructure and facilities, and adjacent vegetation in proximity to their electrical equipment in
25
Los Angeles County, in a manner that did not cause harm to the public welfare.
26
228. LADWP, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged herein, created a condition that
27
was harmful and dangerous to the health, safety and property of the public, including Plaintiffs,
28
and created a condition which created a fire which damaged and interfered with the Plaintiffs' quiet
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 84
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 use and enjoyment of their property. This interference is both substantial and unreasonable.

2 229. Plaintiffs do not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of

3 Defendants.

4 230. The Palisades Fire destroyed 6,837 homes and businesses, damaged another 973

5 structures, killed twelve (12) people, and caused injuries to 3 civilians and 1 firefighter. The

6 numerous ignitions and fires caused by LADWP's arcing powerlines as alleged herein affected a

7 substantial number of people at the same time within the general public, including Plaintiffs, and

8 constituted a public nuisance under California Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480 and Public Resources

9 Code §§ 4170 and 4171.

10 231. The damaging effects of LADWP's creation of a fire hazard and the resulting

11 Palisades Fire are ongoing and affect the public at large.

12 232. As a direct and legal result of LADWP's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered harm that is

13 different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost the

14 occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their land, real and personal property, including

15 but not limited to diminution-in-value of their real property; and impairment of the ability to sell

16 their property; property exposed to toxic chemicals from smoke and soot and lingering smell of

17 smoke, soot, ash and dust in the air.

18 233. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of LADWP, Plaintiffs have suffered,

19 and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worry, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to

20 the interference with the occupancy, possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property.

21 234. A reasonable, ordinary person would be annoyed or disturbed by the conditions

22 caused by Defendants, and the resulting Palisades Fire.

23 235. Defendants’ conduct is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public,

24 including Plaintiffs, outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. There is little to no social

25 utility associated with causing wildfires that destroy the property of the Plaintiffs.

26 236. The unreasonable conduct of LADWP is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury,

27 and/or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs.

28 237. Defendants’ conduct set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 85
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 of Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code §§ 4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil

2 Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action for public

3 nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs, because, as described above, it is

4 injurious and/or offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs unreasonably interferes with their

5 comfortable enjoyment of their property, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary

6 manner, of their property.

7 238. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to stop

8 continued violation of Public Resource Code §§ 4292 and 4293. Plaintiffs also seek an order

9 directing Defendants to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above.

10 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11 By Plaintiffs For Dangerous Condition of Public Property

12 Against Defendant CA STATE PARKS, and DOES 1- 50

13 239. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though

14 fully set forth herein.

15 240. California Government Code §835 states in pertinent part:

16 Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous
17 condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous
condition, that the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
18 which was incurred, and either:

19 (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
20 (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under
Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to prevent
21 against the dangerous condition.

22 241. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that Topanga State Park is owned and managed

23 by CA STATE PARKS and that the January 1, 2025 Lachman Fire and the January 7, 2025

24 Palisades Fire originated in close proximity to each other near the Temescal Ridge Trail in

25 Topanga State Park.

26 242. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the CA STATE PARK's property in

27 Topanga State Park was in a dangerous condition on January 7, 2025 because (1) embers from the

28 Lachman Fire, which occurred six days earlier on property CA STATE PARKS owned and
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 86
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 managed, were not extinguished but allowed to smolder, burn and re-ignite during the high wind

2 event on January 7, 2025; CA STATE PARKS permitted a dangerous fire condition to exist on its

3 property which it owns and manages by allowing embers from the Lachman Fire to smolder, burn

4 and re-ignite; and (3) CA STATE PARKS failed to inspect and maintain its property and failed to

5 provide proper fire protection on its property to prevent embers from the Lachman Fire from

6 smoldering, burning and re-igniting into the Palisades Fire, particularly in light of the NWS's

7 forecast of the "Particularly Dangerous Situation" that would "cause fire starts to rapidly grow in

8 size with extreme fire behavior."

9 243. Plaintiffs allege the dangerous condition on CA STATE PARKS' property was a

10 change from the natural condition of CA STATE PARKS' property. The Palisades Fire and the

11 associated damage to Plaintiffs' properties were due to the changed condition of the CA STATE

12 PARKS' property and not the natural condition of the property.

13 244. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these dangerous conditions caused the

14 injuries to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

15 245. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe that this dangerous condition of CA

16 STATE PARKS' property created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury, which was

17 incurred, namely that embers which were allowed to smolder, burn and re-ignite from a holdover

18 fire on its property were capable of igniting a wildfire and damaging the Plaintiffs' property.

19 246. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that a negligent act or omission by an employee

20 of CA STATE PARKS within the scope of his/her employment created the dangerous condition.

21 CA STATE PARKS and its employees had actual and constructive knowledge of the dangerous

22 condition in time to have taken measures to protect against it. Specifically, the employees of CA

23 STATE PARKS knew or should have known of the "Particularly Dangerous Situation" and

24 "Extreme Fire Conditions" forecasted by the NWS days prior to January 7, 2025 and that any

25 embers not fully extinguished from the Lachman Fire could start a dangerous wildfire. CA STATE

26 PARKS and its employees did not take measures to ensure that the embers from the Lachman Fire

27 were fully extinguished on its property prior to the historic wind event to protect against this

28 dangerous condition.
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 87
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 247. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that this dangerous condition was a substantial

2 factor in causing the Plaintiffs' injuries and damages herein alleged.

3 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

4 By Plaintiffs For Public Nuisance Against Defendant CA STATE PARKS, and DOES 1- 50

5 248. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as

6 though fully set forth herein.

7 249. CA STATE PARKS owed a non-transferable, non-delegable duty to the public,

8 including Plaintiffs, to conduct their business, in particular the maintenance and operation of

9 Topanga State Park, in a manner that did not cause harm to the public welfare.

10 250. CA STATE PARKS, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged herein, created a

11 condition that was harmful and dangerous to the health, safety and property of the public,

12 including Plaintiffs, and created a condition which created a fire which damaged and interfered

13 with the Plaintiffs' quiet use and enjoyment of their property. This interference is both substantial

14 and unreasonable.

15 251. Plaintiffs do not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of

16 Defendants.

17 252. The Palisades Fire destroyed 6,837 homes and businesses, damaged another 973

18 structures, killed twelve (12) people, and caused injuries to 3 civilians and 1 firefighter. The

19 Palisades Fire affected a substantial number of people at the same time within the general public,

20 including Plaintiffs, and constituted a public nuisance under California Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480

21 and Public Resources Code §§ 4170 and 4171.

22 253. The damaging effects of CA STATE PARKS' creation of a fire hazard and the

23 resulting Palisades Fire are ongoing and affect the public at large.

24 254. As a direct and legal result of CA STATE PARKS' conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered

25 harm that is different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs

26 have lost the occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their land, real and personal

27 property, including but not limited to diminution-in-value of their real property; and impairment of

28 the ability to sell their property; property exposed to toxic chemicals from smoke and soot and
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 88
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 lingering smell of smoke, soot, ash and dust in the air.

2 255. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of CA STATE PARKS, Plaintiffs

3 have suffered, and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worry, annoyance, and/or stress

4 attendant to the interference with the occupancy, possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property.

5 256. A reasonable, ordinary person would be annoyed or disturbed by the conditions

6 caused by Defendants, and the resulting Palisades Fire.

7 257. Defendants’ conduct is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public,

8 including Plaintiffs, outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. There is little to no social

9 utility associated with causing wildfires that destroy the property of the Plaintiffs.

10 258. The unreasonable conduct of CA STATE PARKS is a direct and legal cause of the

11 harm, injury, and/or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs.

12 259. Defendants’ conduct set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning

13 of Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code §§ 4104 and 4170, and Code of Civil

14 Procedure § 731. Under Civil Code § 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain an action for public

15 nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs, because, as described above, it is

16 injurious and/or offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs unreasonably interferes with their

17 comfortable enjoyment of their property, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the customary

18 manner, of their property.

19 260. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to

20 stop continued violation of Public Resource Code §§ 4292 and 4293. Plaintiffs also seek an order

21 directing Defendants to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above.

22 / / /

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 89
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 By Plaintiffs, YELENA ENTIN, an individual; ANNA ENTIN, an individual; YELENA

ENTIN LIVING TRUST; YELENA ENTIN, as Trustee of the YELENA ENTIN LIVING
3 TRUST; BORIS YERUHIM, an individual; ALLA YERUHIM, an individual; BORIS
YERUHIM, as Trustee of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST; ALLA YERUHIM, as Trustee
4 of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST; KRISTIN ARMFIELD, an individual; and KRISTIN
ARMFIELD, as Trustee of the KRISTIN ARMFIELD TRUST, For Dangerous Condition of
5 Public Property Against Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1- 50

6 261. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though

7 fully set forth herein.

8 262. California Government Code §835 states in pertinent part:

9 Except as provided by statute, a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous
condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous
10 condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous
condition, that the dangerous condition created a foreseeable risk of the kind of injury
11 which was incurred, and either:

12 (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the
scope of his employment created the dangerous condition; or
13 (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition under
Section 835.2 a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to prevent
14 against the dangerous condition.

15 263. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that the CITY owns numerous vacant lots in

16 Pacific Palisades, including but not limited to 17919 Castellamarre Drive, 17908 Castellamarre

17 Drive, 17916 Castellammare Drive, and 17945 Porto Marina Way in Pacific Palisades.

18 Additionally, plaintiffs are further informed and believe that the CITY owns a single-family home

19 located at 17909 Porto Marina Way which had been abandoned for several years prior to the fire

20 and was in disrepair with overgrown brush on the property on January 7, 2025.

21 264. Plaintiffs allege that the violations by the CITY alleged herein created a dangerous

22 condition of public property, that the aforementioned CITY-owned lots were in a dangerous

23 condition on January 7, 2025, that this dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk

24 of the kind of injury and damage which occurred during the Palisades Fire, and that the negligent

25 or wrongful conduct of the CITY's employees acting within the scope of their employment created

26 the dangerous condition. Finally, Plaintiffs allege that the CITY had notice of this dangerous

27 condition for a long enough time to have protected against it and that Plaintiffs Yelena Entin, Boris

28 Yeruhim and Alla Yeruhim, Kristin Armfield and others, were harmed and that the dangerous
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 90
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 condition was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiffs' harm.

2 265. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that these dangerous conditions caused the

3 injuries to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

4 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

5 By Plaintiffs, YELENA ENTIN, an individual; ANNA ENTIN, an individual; YELENA

ENTIN LIVING TRUST; YELENA ENTIN, as Trustee of the YELENA ENTIN LIVING
6 TRUST; BORIS YERUHIM, an individual; ALLA YERUHIM, an individual; BORIS
YERUHIM, as Trustee of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST; ALLA YERUHIM, as Trustee
7 of the YERUHIM FAMILY TRUST; KRISTIN ARMFIELD, an individual; and KRISTIN
ARMFIELD, as Trustee of the KRISTIN ARMFIELD TRUST, For Public Nuisance Against
8 Defendant CITY OF LOS ANGELES, and DOES 1- 50

9 266. Plaintiffs incorporate and re-allege each of the paragraphs set forth above as though

10 fully set forth herein.

11 267. CITY owed a non-transferable, non-delegable duty to the public, including

12 Plaintiffs, to conduct their business, in particular the maintenance and operation of the

13 aforementioned CITY-owned lots, in a manner that did not cause harm to the public welfare.

14 268. CITY, by acting and/or failing to act, as alleged herein, created a condition that

15 was harmful and dangerous to the health, safety and property of the public, including Plaintiffs,

16 and created a condition which created a fire which damaged and interfered with the Plaintiffs'

17 quiet use and enjoyment of their property. This interference is both substantial and unreasonable.

18 269. Plaintiffs do not consent, expressly or impliedly, to the wrongful conduct of

19 Defendants.

20 270. The Palisades Fire destroyed 6,837 homes and businesses, damaged another 973

21 structures, killed twelve (12) people, and caused injuries to 3 civilians and 1 firefighter. The

22 Palisades Fire affected a substantial number of people at the same time within the general public,

23 including Plaintiffs, and constituted a public nuisance under California Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480

24 and Public Resources Code §§ 4170 and 4171.

25 271. The damaging effects of CITY's creation of a fire hazard and the resulting Palisades

26 Fire are ongoing and affect the public at large.

27 272. As a direct and legal result of CITY's conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered harm that is

28 different from the type of harm suffered by the general public. Specifically, Plaintiffs have lost the
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 91
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 occupancy, possession, use, and/or enjoyment of their land, real and personal property, including

2 but not limited to diminution-in-value of their real property; and impairment of the ability to sell

3 their property; property exposed to toxic chemicals from smoke and soot and lingering smell of

4 smoke, soot, ash and dust in the air.

5 273. As a further direct and legal result of the conduct of CITY, Plaintiffs have suffered,

6 and will continue to suffer, discomfort, anxiety, fear, worry, annoyance, and/or stress attendant to

7 the interference with the occupancy, possession, use and/or enjoyment of their property.

8 274. A reasonable, ordinary person would be annoyed or disturbed by the conditions

9 caused by Defendants, and the resulting Palisades Fire.

10 275. Defendants’ conduct is unreasonable and the seriousness of the harm to the public,

11 including Plaintiffs, outweighs the social utility of Defendants’ conduct. There is little to no social

12 utility associated with causing wildfires that destroy the property of the Plaintiffs.

13 276. The unreasonable conduct of CITY is a direct and legal cause of the harm, injury,

14 and/or damage to the public, including Plaintiffs.

15 277. Defendants’ conduct set forth above constitutes a public nuisance within the meaning

16 of Civil Code §§ 3479 and 3480, Public Resources Code §§ 4104 and 4170, Code of Civil Procedure

17 § 731 and LA.M.C. §57.4906.5.2.1. Under Civil Code § 3493, Plaintiffs have standing to maintain

18 an action for public nuisance because the nuisance is especially injurious to Plaintiffs, because, as

19 described above, it is injurious and/or offensive to the senses of the Plaintiffs unreasonably interferes

20 with their comfortable enjoyment of their property, and/or unlawfully obstructs the free use, in the

21 customary manner, of their property.

22 278. For these reasons, Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction ordering Defendants to

23 stop continued violation of Public Resource Code §§ 4292 and 4293. Plaintiffs also seek an order

24 directing Defendants to abate the existing and continuing nuisance described above.

25 / / /

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 92
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:

3 1. Costs of repair and/or replacement of damaged, destroyed, and/or lost personal and/or

4 real property;

5 2. Loss of use, benefit, goodwill, and enjoyment of Plaintiffs’ real and/or personal

6 property, and/or alternate living expenses;

7 3. Loss of wages, earning capacity, and/or business profits or proceeds and/or any

8 related business interruption losses;

9 4. Attorney’s fees, expert fees, consultant fees, and litigation costs and expenses, as

10 allowed under California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1021.9 and 1036;

11 5. General damages for fear, worry, annoyance, disturbance, inconvenience, mental

12 anguish, emotional distress, and loss of quiet enjoyment of property;

13 6. All costs of suit;

14 7. Prejudgment interest; and

15 8. For such other and further relief as the Court shall deem appropriate, all according to

16 proof.

17 Dated: July 8, 2025 ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP

18

19 By:
Alexander Robertson, IV
20
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
21 Roger N. Behle, Jr.
Robert A. Curtis
22 Kevin D. Gamarnik
23 GANDHI LAW GROUP
Jay C. Gandhi
24
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 93
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
 1 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

2 Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on claims for which a jury is available under the law.

3 Dated: July 8, 2025 ROBERTSON & ASSOCIATES, LLP

5 By:
Alexander Robertson, IV
6
FOLEY BEZEK BEHLE & CURTIS, LLP
7 Roger N. Behle, Jr.
Robert A. Curtis
8 Kevin D. Gamarnik
9 GANDHI LAW GROUP
Jay C. Gandhi
10
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28
ROBERTSON &
ASSOCIATES, LLP
00045403.2 94
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT