Spencer Pratt and Heidi Montag, along with several other Pacific Palisades property owners, have sued the city of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power over damage to their properties during the Palisades fire, adding to the growing litigation against the city in the wake of the disaster.
The “Laguna Beach” and “The Hills” reality stars, who lost their home in the fire, filed their lawsuit Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging inverse condemnation — a legal concept that gives property owners compensation for damage caused by public use.
In this case, the reality TV personalities, along with more than 20 other property owners, tenants and individuals who suffered as a result of the Palisades fire, blamed the city and the utility’s operation of its water supply and related infrastructure for causing damage to their properties.
The complaint cited reports about the Santa Ynez Reservoir — the reservoir meant to service Pacific Palisades — being offline and emptied before the fire erupted Jan. 7. According to Los Angeles Times reporting, the 117-million gallon reservoir was offline for repairs since early 2024. The reservoir remains empty, and DWP’s chief of water operations told The Times that repairs requested “ASAP” in January 2024 would not be done until April or May of 2025.
The reservoir situation has sparked outrage against the DWP and its leadership, prompting Gov. Gavin Newsom to order an investigation into the causes behind the loss of water pressure to fire hydrants, which hampered firefighting efforts in the city. At least two other lawsuits have been filed.
Former and current DWP officials have acknowledged that if the Santa Ynez Reservoir had held water, higher-elevation areas of the Palisades would have had more water pressure, though it is unclear for how long. It’s also unclear whether the reservoir would have made a meaningful difference in firefighters’ ability to combat the flames, which burned 23,400 acres. The fire was 72% contained as of Thursday, more than two weeks after it began.
The Palisades fire, fueled by ultra-dry weather conditions and vegetation, was compounded by hurricane-force winds and led to 11 deaths, destroyed 6,662 structures and damaged 890. Water-systems experts have said that with extreme Santa Ana winds that prevented the immediate use of planes and helicopters, the Palisades fire initially was impossible to control. Municipal water systems aren’t equipped for such blazes, they said.
But the Pratts and plaintiffs blamed the DWP for making “the conscious decision to operate the water supply system with the reservoir drained and unusable as a ‘cost-saving’ measure,” limiting the flow of water to the area’s fire hydrants and tankers. They also accused the defendants of designing the water system for public use “such that it would not have enough water pressure to fight an urban fire.”
The complaint, obtained Thursday by The Times, alleges that the facilities, reservoir, water supply system, hydrants, infrastructure and other public improvement measures taken by the city and utility “presented an inherent danger and risk of fire to private property.” They also blamed the city and utility for taking “a known, calculated risk” that private property would be damaged and destroyed by fire.
“On information and belief, the Palisades Fire was an inescapable and unavoidable consequence of the water supply system servicing areas in and around Pacific Palisades as it was planned and constructed,” the complaint said. “The system necessarily failed, and this failure was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs to suffer the losses alleged in this Complaint.”
The damage “was proximately and substantially caused by the actions of Defendants … and each of them … caused Plaintiffs’ damages,” the complaint said.
The defendants, who are seeking an amount in damages to be determined at trial, said they have not received adequate compensation for property that was damaged or destroyed, which the complaint alleges “constitutes a taking or damaging of Plaintiffs’ property by the Defendants, and each of them, without just compensation.”
They also want to recover the costs of repairing or replacing lost or destroyed property, any lost wages or business profits, and living expenses stemming from loss of use of their homes, plus the legal costs.
Representatives for City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto’s office and the DWP did not immediately respond Thursday to The Times’ requests for comment.
The Pratts have spoken out prolifically on social media and in news interviews about what they lost in the fire and their efforts to raise money in its wake. 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 that he made a “life-changing” amount of money on TikTok from individuals seeking to help his family recover. A spokesperson 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 razed large swaths of Altadena while it burned simultaneously with the Palisades fire. The plaintiffs allege that evidence suggests the Eaton fire was started by SCE’s electrical equipment.
Times staff writers Matt Hamilton and David Zahniser contributed to this report.
