Malibu Sues Los Angeles and the State of California Over 2025 Wildfire Damage That Destroyed a Third of the City

The city of Malibu is suing Los Angeles, the state of California, and several other state and local entities claiming their actions led to the extensive damage it suffered in the 2025 wildfires.

The fires, which destroyed over 700 homes and dozens of businesses in Malibu, were "a foreseeable and proximate result of the unlawful conduct" of the state and city, according to the complaint filed in California Superior Court.

The complaint also names Los Angeles County; Los Angeles Department of Water and Power; California Department of Parks and Recreation; Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority; and Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy as defendants.

It's additional fallout from the Palisades and Eaton fires of January 2025, the most destructive in the state's history.

"This decision was not made lightly," Mayor Bruce Silverstein said in a news release. "The city has an obligation to act in the best interests of our residents and taxpayers. 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."

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass, and the L.A. City Attorney's office have not commented.

Realtor.com® researchers estimate the fires wiped out approximately $8.3 billion in home value across Pacific Palisades and Altadena. Those numbers don't include Malibu or other enclaves like Topanga.

Across them all, the fire destroyed 16,000 structures, including 12,000 homes, causing upward of $131 billion in property and capital losses.

A third of the city of Malibu wiped out

The lawsuit lays out the scope of damage to Malibu. Fully a third of the city was destroyed in the Palisades fire of Jan. 8-9.

That includes the total destruction of 700 homes and about 100 businesses, or about 11% of the structures in the city. The fire damaged another 700 structures, states the lawsuit. That includes 62 short-term rentals.

The economic damage goes even further, because half of all the city's jobs were in properties destroyed by the fire. About 1,400 residents left the city, and Malibu also faces a depleted tax base harmed by reduced tourism activity, power outages, and school closures.

In the months that followed, businesses saw revenue declines of 70% to 90%, states the suit. The extended closure of Pacific Coast Highway impacts businesses not damaged in the fire. In all, businesses are losing $9.5 million a month in sales.

The suit seeks to-be-determined damages for damage to city property, interruptuon of revenues, and attorney's fees. It also seeks "greater of diminution in value and repair" of the lost property—potentially a huge number based on the total value of the property lost or cost to repair it caused by the fire.

'Emotionally and physically scarred'

The suit says the other agencies should have been aware of drought conditions in the area, a history of wildfires in the area, and warnings from the National Weather Service.

Nonetheless, Malibu alleges California failed to inspect at-risk land after the initial Lachman fire. L.A. and its agencies failed to keep its water supply system and electrical systems in proper state of repair, Malibu claims. And so when the Palisades fire erupted several days later, the area's water supply system failed.

The resulting fire damage has harmed Malibu's long-term financial prospects, the suit states.

"The city of Malibu is still reeling from the destruction it left in its wake: a hollowed out community, burned and destroyed buildings and homes, a shrinking tax base, emotionally and physically scarred citizens, and untold environmental damage," states the complaint.

The city's rebuilding dashboard shows that as of Feb. 19, it's issued 561 building permits for damage, repairs, and debris removal. For rebuild of single-family residences, Malibu has approved 165 applications and issued 29 building permits. But it has not yet issued a certificate of occupancy for a home.