Palisades Fire Litigation: Court Rejects Government Attempts to Dismiss Claims
NOTE: Bill Daniels and Will Daniels are members of the Palisades Fire Plaintiff Steering Committee and the following is a February 11, 2026 case update for Daniels Law clients to keep them up to date on the proceedings.
On February 10, 2026, Judge Samantha P. Jessner of the Los Angeles Superior Court issued two tentative rulings addressing attempts by the City of Los Angeles, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), and the State of California to dismiss claims brought on behalf of Palisades Fire victims. The results are overwhelmingly favorable.
A note on tentative rulings: These are the Judge’s preliminary views on the legal issues. They reflect the Court’s initial analysis and leanings but are not final. The Judge’s final rulings may differ after she considers further argument from the parties. Nothing is set in stone until a final order is entered.
The City of Los Angeles and LADWP: All Six Claims Survive
The City and LADWP asked the Court to throw out all six claims against them at the earliest stage of the case, before any evidence is even gathered. The Court rejected every single one of their arguments and allowed all six claims to move forward. Here is what that means in plain terms.
Water System Failure Claims
The Santa Ynez Reservoir held 117 million gallons of water and was critical to water pressure throughout Pacific Palisades. It was drained before the fire due to a damaged floating cover. Our complaint alleged that LADWP designed the water system in a way that it would completely fail during a high-demand event like the Palisades Fire if that reservoir was taken offline.
The City and LADWP argued they cannot be held responsible for failing to supply water to fight a fire. The Court disagreed, finding that while certain legal protections may shield the government from ordinary negligence claims related to firefighting, those protections do not apply to claims for inverse condemnation — a legal theory rooted in the California Constitution that requires the government to compensate property owners when a public system causes damage to private property. The Court found that the allegations about the flawed design, maintenance, and operation of the water system are sufficient to proceed.
Power Line Claims
Our complaint alleged that LADWP’s wooden utility poles were overloaded, decayed, and not properly maintained, causing power lines to fall and ignite additional fires throughout Pacific Palisades. It also alleged that LADWP failed to de-energize its equipment in a timely manner. A request was made at 1:47 p.m. on January 7, but the operator did not arrive until 6:03 p.m., more than four hours later. When the operator finally attempted to shut down the equipment, a malfunction caused the power lines to arc, spark, and start more fires.
LADWP argued it should be protected by emergency and discretionary immunities. The Court rejected these arguments, finding that the claims go beyond just the failure to de-energize one station — they also address the systemic failure to maintain poles and equipment — and that these government immunities do not shield LADWP from liability at this stage.
Overgrown Brush on City-Owned Vacant Lots
The complaint alleged that the City owns several vacant lots in Pacific Palisades that were overgrown with brush in violation of the City’s own brush clearance laws, and that this contributed to the fire’s spread. The City argued it was immune from these claims. The Court disagreed, finding that the City cannot escape responsibility for allowing a dangerous fire condition to exist on property it owns and manages, particularly when it violated its own safety ordinances.
The State of California: Two Claims Move Forward, Two Dismissed
The State of California, acting through the Department of Parks and Recreation, also asked the Court to dismiss all four claims against it. The Court allowed two of those claims to proceed and dismissed the other two.
Claims That Will Proceed: The Lachman Fire Burn Scar
The Lachman Fire started in Topanga State Park on January 1, 2025 and was reported as contained. However, smoldering embers were left in the ground, and six days later — when the Santa Ana Winds picked up — those embers reignited and became the Palisades Fire.
We alleged that the State knew about the smoldering embers, knew that dangerous wind conditions were forecast, and failed to inspect the burn scar, post a fire watch, or use thermal imaging to ensure the fire was fully extinguished. The State argued that it was immune and that the smoldering embers were not a “dangerous condition” under the law. The Court disagreed, finding that a smoldering burn scar on state property is a physical defect that posed a foreseeable threat, especially with high winds approaching. The Court allowed both the dangerous condition and public nuisance claims related to the burn scar to proceed.
Claims That Were Dismissed: Overgrown Brush on State-Owned Lots
The Court dismissed the claims that overgrown brush on State-owned vacant lots in Pacific Palisades constituted a dangerous condition and a public nuisance. The Court found that because these lots are part of Topanga State Park, the State is actually required by law to preserve the natural vegetation and flora on those properties. Under California law, something done under the express authority of a statute cannot be considered a nuisance. The Court also found that we did not sufficiently allege that the State had notice of the overgrown brush on those specific lots. These claims were dismissed without the ability to refile them.
What Happens Next
While these tentative rulings are very encouraging, it is important to understand the road ahead.
These are tentative, not final. The Judge has indicated that she expects to issue her final rulings by the first week of March 2026 at the latest. Until then, these rulings may be modified. We will notify clients promptly once the final orders are entered.
The defendants may seek appellate review. Once the final rulings are issued, both the State of California and the City of Los Angeles/LADWP have the right to challenge the rulings by filing what is known as a “writ” with the California Court of Appeal. A writ is a request asking a higher court to review and potentially overturn a trial court’s decision before the case proceeds further. If any defendant pursues this route, it could cause some delay, but it would not necessarily change the outcome.
Next steps after the final ruling. If the Judge’s final ruling is consistent with these tentative rulings, the City and LADWP will be required to formally respond to our claims within 30 days of that final order. At that point, the case will move into the next phase — discovery — where we will begin gathering evidence, documents, and testimony.
The litigation continues against all defendants. These rulings address only the City, LADWP, and the State. Claims against other defendants, including Southern California Edison, Edison International, and others, remain pending and will be addressed separately.
We believe these rulings represent a significant step forward in holding the responsible parties accountable for the devastating losses suffered by the Palisades Fire community. Daniels Law remains fully committed to pursuing justice and will continue to keep clients informed as the case progresses.
If you have any questions about these rulings or any other aspect of your case, please do not hesitate to contact our office.
— Daniels Law, APC