Malibu, ’emotionally and physically scarred,’ is suing California, L.A., others over Palisades fire
Malibu is suing the state of California, the city of Los Angeles, LA County and other public entities. The city, which says the “entire character” of the waterfront area has changed due to the Palisades fire, is seeking compensation for loss of property, business and income.
Malibu officials confirmed Wednesday that the city has filed a civil complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court with a list of defendants that includes the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority and the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
Malibu officials said the decision was necessary to try to recoup losses affecting “long-term financial consequences for Malibu and its taxpayers,” according to a press release. The complaint does not list a specific dollar amount the city is seeking in damages.
“The lawsuit seeks liability for the extraordinary losses our community has suffered while recognizing that Malibu must continue to work collaboratively with our regional partners moving forward,” Mayor Bruce Silverstein said in a statement.
According to the complaint, the city’s “entire character changed” on Jan. 7, 2025, when the defendants’ “illegal conduct caused the Palisades Fire to ignite.”
The fire that followed killed 12 peopleHalf of them resided in Malibu, according to the city. About 700 homes and dozens of businesses were also destroyed in Malibu, the complaint said.
These businesses included restaurants that were local establishments. Moonshadows, Reel Inn and Rosenthal Wine Bar & Patio.
Malibu is still reeling from the devastation of the fire, “an evacuated community, burned and destroyed buildings and homes, a shrinking tax base, emotionally and physically scarred citizens, and untold environmental damage,” the complaint states.
Malibu claims the fire was “not an accident” but a “foreseeable and proximate consequence of the unlawful conduct” of the defendants.
Each of the entities was blamed for its role in the fire, including failure to properly address burn scarring from the Lachman fire, which again became the Palisades fire; “reservoirs left empty for more than a year”; and failure to provide “basic firefighting infrastructure,” according to the complaint.
“This decision was not made lightly,” Silverstein said. “The city has an obligation to act in the best interest of our residents and taxpayers.”
This story first appeared on: Los Angeles Times.
