Daniel Benjamin Levin
Nicholas Daniel Fram
Lisa Jane Demsky
On January 7, 2025, the Palisades Fire devastated Pacific Palisades — destroying more than 6,500 structures. Pratt and Montag's home (valued at roughly $3 million) was among them, and was uninsured after they were dropped by their insurance company. On January 21, they filed suit with 20+ other homeowners.
The lawsuit alleges inverse condemnation — that the city's decision to leave the Santa Ynez Reservoir empty for nearly a year over what plaintiffs describe as "delayed minor repairs" left Pacific Palisades hydrants dry as the fire spread. Three tanks holding one million gallons each went dry within 12 hours. The complaint frames this as a conscious operational decision, not an accident.
An LA County Public Works director publicly acknowledged that the hydrant system was "inadequate for comprehensive wildfire protection" — language plaintiffs have already cited as a partial admission against the City and LADWP.
Pratt has since launched a campaign for LA mayor, saying he will not drop the lawsuit if elected. The court has already allowed the case to proceed to full discovery.
- 01LADWP left the Santa Ynez Reservoir empty for nearly a year — the deferred-repair period — leaving Pacific Palisades hydrants without water when the fire hit.
- 02Three one-million-gallon tanks went dry within 12 hours; firefighters could not access pressurized water at the hydrants.
- 03The hydrant system was "inadequate for comprehensive wildfire protection" — admitted publicly by an LA County Public Works director.
- 04Plaintiffs suffered property damage, personal injuries, loss of income, business interruption, and emotional distress.
- 05Pratt and Montag were house poor and uninsured after being dropped by their insurance provider.
This is one of the highest-profile lawsuits stemming from the LA fires. It tests whether municipal governments can be held liable for infrastructure decisions that exacerbate natural disasters — specifically, whether deferred-maintenance choices on critical fire-suppression infrastructure can support an inverse-condemnation theory under California law (a constitutional taking, not just negligence).
Two pieces make this case unusually strong: (1) the public concession by an LA County Public Works official that the hydrant system was "inadequate for comprehensive wildfire protection" — that's an admission against the city's interest before discovery even started; (2) the year-long reservoir-empty period, which converts the claim from "bad luck during an emergency" to a foreseeable, multi-month operational decision. If the court accepts that framing, it opens up similar claims for thousands of Palisades-fire victims.
Pratt's simultaneous mayoral campaign adds an extraordinary political dimension — and his post-discovery-greenlight quote ("Governor Newsom can't stop me — WE GOT THE GREEN LIGHT") signals he'll keep running the lawsuit and the campaign as one story.
Pratt took the stage May 6, 2026 at the Skirball Cultural Center for the LA mayoral debate hosted by NBC4 / Telemundo 52, sharing the floor with incumbent Mayor Karen Bass and Councilmember Nithya Raman. The Palisades Fire — the same event at the heart of this lawsuit — was front and center in his framing. Live commentary on the night called Pratt's appearance a "stunning performance" and credited him with sustained pressure on Bass and Raman. Post-debate polling: Pratt won by ~80%.
Live tweet thread: @imdanabowling