Malibu is filing suit against the state of California, the city of Los Angeles, L.A. County and additional public entities. Saying the seaside enclave’s “entire character” was changed by the Palisades fire, the city is seeking damages for the loss of property, business and city revenue.
Malibu officials confirmed Wednesday that the city had filed a civil complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court with a list of defendants that included 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 that affect “the long-term fiscal implications for Malibu and its taxpayers,” according to a news release. The complaint does not list a specific dollar amount the city is seeking in damages.
“The lawsuit seeks accountability for the extraordinary losses suffered by our community while recognizing that Malibu must continue to work collaboratively with our regional partners going forward,” Mayor Bruce Silverstein said in a statement.
The city’s “entire character changed” on Jan. 7, 2025, when the defendants’ “unlawful conduct caused the Palisades Fire to ignite,” according to the complaint.
The ensuing blaze killed 12 people, half of whom were Malibu residents, according to the city. Roughly 700 Malibu homes and dozens of businesses also were destroyed, the complaint states.
Those businesses included restaurants that were local institutions, such as Moonshadows, the Reel Inn and Rosenthal Wine Bar & Patio.
Malibu “is still reeling from the destruction” of the fire, “a hollowed out 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 that the fire was “not an accident” but a “foreseeable and proximate result of unlawful conduct” by the defendants.
Each of the entities was blamed for its role in the fire, including not properly addressing the burn scar from the Lachman fire, which rekindled to become the Palisades fire; leaving “reservoirs empty for over a year”; and failing to ensure “essential firefighting infrastructure,” according to the complaint.
“This decision was not made lightly,” Silverstein said. “The city has an obligation to act in the best interests of our residents and taxpayers.”
