Palisades Fire Law Suit to Go Before Judge Feb. 5

Start of the Palisades Fire on January 7, 2025.

About 7,000 homes and businesses were destroyed in the Palisades Fire.

By JEREMY PADAWAR

A judge will hear arguments in the Palisades fire lawsuit that will determine more than scheduling or legal procedure on February 5. This hearing goes to the heart of whether victims will ever be allowed to uncover facts through discovery, or whether the case will be cut off before evidence is examined.

The decision being considered is not about damages, and it is not yet about assigning blame. It is about whether government agencies can be held accountable at all when systems fail at a catastrophic scale.

This is important to Palisades fire victims because it determines whether their losses are ever examined in a courtroom or quietly erased by legal doctrine before facts come out.  Harsh, but this is the reality faced by my neighbors – roughly 40-50% of whom are financially devastated.

At the center of this hearing is government immunity. The defendants are asking the court to dismiss large portions of the case before any depositions, documents, or sworn testimony are produced.

Their position is that even if mistakes were made, even if risks were foreseeable, and even if infrastructure or emergency response failed, the government should not be subject to suit.

The judge must decide whether these claims are legally barred by immunity or whether they deserve to proceed so the facts can be tested in court.

Government immunity was never meant to function as a universal escape hatch. It was designed to protect good faith policy decisions, not to shield systemic neglect, ignored warnings, or preventable breakdowns between agencies during emergencies.

When immunity is stretched this far, it sends a dangerous message that public entities can fail the public and never be required to explain how or why. That is not accountability. It is insulation from scrutiny. If immunity arguments prevail, the consequences are severe.

Claims may be dismissed before discovery begins, meaning no internal emails, no depositions, no timelines, and no sworn explanations. Victims may never learn what decisions were made, who made them, or when critical opportunities to mitigate harm were missed.

That outcome would not only affect Palisades. It would shape how future disaster victims across California are treated when they seek answers. If the court instead allows the case to move forward, the result is not an automatic judgment against the government. It simply means the truth is allowed to emerge through evidence rather than public relations statements.

Discovery exists for a reason. It replaces speculation with facts and forces accountability through transparency. This moment is bigger than one fire. If courts continue to expand immunity each time something goes wrong, there is no incentive to fix broken systems, no consequence for repeated failure, and no reason to improve preparedness.

Accountability is not antigovernment. It is pro competence and pro responsibility. The judge is unlikely to issue a ruling on February 5. A written decision will likely come weeks later. That ruling, line by line, will determine whether this case proceeds, whether victims get discovery, and whether government immunity remains a shield or becomes an impenetrable wall.

At its core, this case asks a simple question. When public systems fail the public, should the public be allowed to ask why, under oath, with evidence? That is what this hearing is really about.

 ABOUT THE JUDGE – SAMANTHA P JESSNER

Judge Samantha P. Jessner has a reputation in Los Angeles Superior Court as a judge who plays it straight. Lawyers on both sides generally view her as even-handed, well-prepared, and serious about the law rather than outcomes. She does not tip the scales emotionally, but she also does not rubber-stamp government arguments simply because they come from public agencies.

She is not a “plaintiff-friendly” judge in the sense of bending rules or overlooking pleading defects. At the same time, she is not reflexively deferential to government defendants. In prior wildfire and public-entity cases, she has shown a willingness to let claims proceed when plaintiffs plausibly allege failures that go beyond discretionary policy decisions and into operational or systemic breakdowns. That distinction is critical here.

Importantly for our case, Judge Jessner TENDS TO BE SKEPTICAL OF OVERBROAD IMMUNITY ARGUMENTS. She understands that immunity is meant to be narrow and purposeful, not a catch-all shield to avoid scrutiny.

When immunity is asserted expansively, she typically demands a clear legal basis rather than accepting generalized claims of discretion or emergency response protection. That doesn’t mean she rejects immunity outright, but she applies it carefully and claim by claim.

She is also known for caring about the integrity of the process. Judges like Jessner place real weight on whether cutting off discovery would prematurely prevent facts from ever coming to light. In complex, high-impact cases, that concern often shows up in rulings that allow cases to proceed past the pleading stage even if the ultimate merits are unresolved.

The flip side is that she writes careful, detailed rulings. If she dismisses claims, she usually explains why. If she allows them to move forward, she does so deliberately. Her decisions are built to withstand appeal, which is why she rarely rules from the bench on matters of this magnitude.

TO ACCESS THE HEARING ELECTRONICALLY:

The hearing will be streamed live on the court’s LACourtConnect website. Plaintiffs in the case will need to log in using the case name and number, which is Grigsby, et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al, Case No. 25STCV00832. Anyone who is interested to view the hearing should do so remotely using the Court’s website.