Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag, along with several other property owners in Pacific Palisades, are suing the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power for damage to their properties during the Palisades fire, adding to the growing number of lawsuits against the city. the wake of disaster.
The stars of the reality of “Laguna Beach” and “The Hills”, who lost their house in a fire, filed their case on Tuesday in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, alleging inverse condemnation – a legal concept that gives property owners compensation for damage caused by public use. .
In this case, the reality TV characters, along with more than 20 other property owners, tenants and people who suffered from the Palisades fire, blame the city and the operation of the water utility and related infrastructure for causing damage to the buildings.
The complaint cited reports that the Santa Ynez Reservoir — a reservoir meant to serve Pacific Palisades — was offline and drained before the fire broke out on Jan. 7. According to a Los Angeles Times report, the 117 million gallon lake has been offline for maintenance since the beginning. 2024. The lake remains empty, and the DWP’s water works manager told The Times that repairs had been requested. “ASAP” in January 2024 will not be done until April or May 2025.
The state of the dam has angered the DWP and its leadership, which has prompted Gov. Gavin Newsom to issue an order to investigate the cause of the loss of water pressure from the water pipes, which has hampered firefighting efforts in the city. At least two other cases have been filed.
Former and current DWP officials have acknowledged that if the Santa Ynez Reservoir had been holding water, the highest elevations of the Palisades would have had more water pressure, though it is not clear for how long. It is not clear whether the lake would have made a significant difference to firefighters’ ability to fight the blaze, which has burned 23,400 hectares. The fire was 72% contained as of Thursday, more than two weeks after it started.
The Palisades Fire, fueled by extremely dry weather and vegetation, was compounded by strong winds and resulted in 11 deaths, destroyed 6,662 structures and destroyed 890. the use of airplanes and helicopters, the Palisades fire was initially out of control. They said the municipal water systems are not equipped for fire.
But the Pratts and the plaintiffs accuse the DWP of making a “reasonable decision to use a water supply system and a reservoir that can be used as a ‘conservation’ method,” restricting the flow of water to local fire engines and tankers. They also accused the defendants of designing the water system for public use “in such a way that it does not have enough water pressure to fight urban fires.”
The complaint, obtained Thursday by The Times, says the facilities, water storage, water, plumbing, infrastructure and other public improvements taken by the city and utilities “created danger and fire hazards on private property.” They also accused the city and utilities of taking a “known, calculated risk” that private property would be damaged and destroyed by fire.
“On knowledge and belief, the Palisades Fire was an inevitable and unavoidable consequence of the water supply system in and around Pacific Palisades as planned and constructed,” the complaint states. “This plan really failed, and this failure was a major factor that caused the Plaintiffs to lose the case alleged in this Complaint.”
The damages “were proximately and substantially caused by the actions of the defendants … and each of them … caused the damages of the plaintiffs,” the complaint said.
The DWP said in press releases related to the fire that it had to take the Santa Ynez Reservoir out of service to meet safe drinking water regulations and that the repair work was reduced by the city’s charter competitive bidding process. The state says the Palisades water system as built exceeded state and federal requirements to support community needs.
The defendants, who are seeking total damages to be determined at trial, said they have not received adequate compensation for the damaged or destroyed property, which the complaint says “includes the taking or destruction of the Plaintiffs’ property by the defendants, and each of them, without just compensation.”
They also want to recover the cost of repairing or replacing lost or damaged property, any lost wages or business profits, and living expenses resulting from the loss of use of their home, and legal fees.
Representatives of City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office and the DWP did not immediately respond Thursday to The Times’ requests for comment.
The Pratts have been very vocal on social media and in news interviews about the victims of the fire and their efforts to raise money for them. Earlier this month, Spencer Pratt made a public plea for fans to buy and stream his wife’s 2010 album “Superficial,” sending it to No. 1 on the iTunes chart. He also said he made “life-changing” money on TikTok from people who wanted to help his family recover. A spokesman for the couple did not immediately respond Thursday to a request for comment.
Meanwhile, at least 20 lawsuits have been filed against Southern California Edison in connection with the Eaton fire, which destroyed large areas of Altadena when it burned along with the Palisades fire. Plaintiffs allege that evidence suggests the Eaton fire was started by SCE electrical equipment.
Times staff writers Matt Hamilton and David Zahniser contributed to this report.
