Edison’s New Co-Defendants Join Eaton Fire Legal Battle in Court Today

Attorneys in the consolidated Eaton Fire litigation return to court today for a status conference that will address discovery procedures following Southern California Edison’s sweeping cross-complaints against more than a dozen local agencies and utilities.

The 10 a.m. hearing before Judge Laura A. Seigle at the Spring Street Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles comes 10 days after Edison filed claims against Los Angeles County, Pasadena Water & Power, five other water agencies, SoCalGas, and the County’s emergency alert contractor, Genasys.

The filings allege these entities share responsibility for the deaths and destruction caused by the January fire that killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,400 structures in Altadena.

Edison acknowledges its equipment may have ignited the blaze. But the utility argues accountability should extend to agencies it says failed to issue timely evacuation warnings, provide adequate water for firefighting, and prevent gas-fueled explosions that spread the flames.

“Ultimate accountability should be shared by everyone whose actions—and equally important inactions—made this disaster worse and contributed to it,” said Douglas J. Dixon, a partner at Hueston Hennigan LLP who leads Edison’s defense.

The cross-complaints, filed on a court-ordered January 16 deadline, allege that residents in west Altadena—where all but one of the 19 deaths occurred—were not warned to evacuate until 3:25 a.m. on January 8, more than nine hours after the fire began. Edison’s filings also allege water agencies failed to provide adequate supply for firefighters and that SoCalGas’s system caused gas leaks and explosions that contributed to the fire’s spread.

SoCalGas flatly rejected those claims.

“Edison has acknowledged its role in the Eaton fire for the better part of a year now,” the company said in a January 21 statement. “SoCalGas intends to vigorously defend against what it considers to be Edison’s attempts to deflect responsibility and accountability.”

Los Angeles County declined to comment on the litigation.

The consolidated litigation proceeds under the lead case Gursey v. Southern California Edison Co., filed by Altadena resident Jeremy Gursey on January 13, after his Lake Avenue home was destroyed. More than 130 lawsuits have since been filed, representing homeowners, renters, businesses, and families who lost loved ones. Public entities including Los Angeles County, Pasadena, Sierra Madre, and the federal government have also sued Edison.

Plaintiff attorneys maintain Edison bears primary responsibility. “Time and again, Edison has turned a blind eye to addressing the foreseeable risks of its electrical equipment igniting catastrophic wildfires,” said Rahul Ravipudi of Panish Shea Ravipudi LLP, one of three liaison counsel appointed to coordinate the plaintiff cases. “It remains a company driven by the pursuit of profit and a willingness to sacrifice the safety and security of our communities.”

The official cause of the fire remains undetermined, according to Cal Fire. But in a July Securities and Exchange Commission filing, Edison reported it was “not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition.”

Judge Seigle has set the first bellwether trial—a test case to gauge liability and damages—for January 25, 2027, with pre-trial filings due January 4 of that year. Case management conferences like today’s hearing coordinate discovery, address procedural disputes, and maintain schedules across the hundreds of plaintiffs.

Edison has launched a voluntary compensation program for fire survivors who agree not to sue. The utility has extended 95 settlement offers totaling $42.8 million, and the program runs through November 2026.

The trial date, plaintiff attorneys say, will pressure Edison toward settlement. “If history is any indication,” said Michael Artinian, one of the attorneys suing the utility, “the trial date will push Edison to come to the table.”