Attorneys representing Eaton fire victims are seeking to force Southern California Edison to cover the cost of blood testing and to establish a medical monitoring program for thousands of children they say were potentially exposed to lead during the massive wildfire.
With the first set of lawsuits blaming Edison for the deadly blaze that leveled much of Altadena not currently scheduled to go to trial until early 2027, the California Fire Victims Law Center is seeking to fast-track part of the wave of litigation the organization’s attorney’s say is needed to prevent long-term health consequences for young residents.
As the Eaton fire that started Jan. 7 consumed more than 9,000 structures and killed 19 people, a recent legal filing from the California Fire Victims Law Center contends that “six tons of lead” was released across local communities, which the center’s attorneys described as “creating an invisible threat that poses critical risk to children’s health and development.”
The lawsuit — like other legal complaints filed by hundreds of fire victims — alleges that Edison’s electrical equipment triggered the fire. SCE officials have previously said their internal investigation has focused on the theory that a long-dormant electrical tower became reenergized and ignited nearby brush.
“Our hearts are with everyone who was affected by the Southern California wildfires,” SCE Spokesman Jeff Monford said on Wednesday when asked about the lead-related lawsuit. “We are reviewing the lawsuit that has been filed and will respond through the legal process.”
In an amended complaint filed Monday in Los Angeles County Superior Court, the attorneys wrote that their lawsuit “seeks to protect the health and welfare of all minors in the communities affected by the Eaton Fires” by “requiring swift and decisive action in the form of the establishment of a detailed and comprehensive Medical Monitoring Program.”
“The last thing we want to do is for them to sweep it under the rug and pretend it didn’t happen,” said Bryan Aylstock, one of the attorneys who filed the lawsuit regarding the alleged lead exposure. “Now is the time for Edison to step up to the plate and do the right things. That is what we plan to ask to ask them to do and force them to do if necessary.”
The first step, the plaintiff attorney’s say, is to identify which children have been impacted, even if the effects aren’t yet obvious. Under California law, “children should be afforded preference by trial courts,” the attorneys wrote in an amended complaint filed with the court on Monday.
“We want to make sure these children have blood tests and we know who needs the next steps,” Attorney Kiley Grombacher said. “You don’t see it right away. You don’t know when it is going to manifest. Sometime it is much further down the line.”
The plaintiff attorneys are seeking class action status for their lawsuit in order to represent all residents who were 14 or younger when the Eaton fire broke out and reside in Altadena, Pasadena, North and South Arroyo, Highland Park and Eagle Rock.
The exact impact of lead and other toxins released as a result of the Eaton fire is not yet clear. Lead-based paint, in particular, was common in homes prior to 1979.
Attorneys argue that means the fact that “dangerous levels of lead” were released into the environment is “irrefutable.” The lawsuit cites air quality monitoring that found a “110-fold increase in the atmospheric lead level immediately after the fires” as well as soil testing that “later confirmed elevated lead levels in areas downwind of the Eaton fire.” Caltech discovered “lead everywhere,” the attorneys wrote.
Representative soil sample testing carried out as part of a Los Angeles County Public Health study earlier this year found a higher percentage of samples with lead levels above health-based screening thresholds taken from parcels downwind of the Eaton fire. Pasadena earlier this year conducted soil testing at some parks to make sure they were safe for visitors, including children more vulnerable to lead exposure.
Officials earlier this cautioned, however, that the soil sampling that led to concerns about lead were a sign that additional evaluation was needed, not necessarily that it was toxic or needed to be remediated or cleaned up.
The Los Angeles County Superior Court judge assigned the fire-related civil cases has not yet ruled on the request to fast-track the litigation over the potential impact of lead exposure to children, the plaintiff attorneys said.
“It is so difficult when there are so many cases filed,” Aylstock said. “But it is also so important that we advance this litigation because of the needs of these children.”
A hearing in the case has been set for Sept. 3.