The city of Malibu has filed a lawsuit against Los Angeles and the state of California, alleging negligence in their response to the catastrophic Palisades fire which wreaked havoc on the coastal community.

According to the legal filing, Malibu asserts that the wildfire significantly altered the “entire character” of the city, leaving lasting damage that the community is still struggling to overcome.

The comprehensive 66-page lawsuit aims to recuperate the “substantial financial losses” incurred due to the fire’s destructive path.

“This was not a decision made lightly,” stated Malibu Mayor Bruce Silverstein. He emphasized that the city has a duty to protect the interests of its residents and taxpayers. The lawsuit, he explained, seeks to hold accountable those responsible for the severe damage inflicted on Malibu, while also stressing the importance of future collaboration with regional partners.

The lawsuit highlights the destruction in Malibu’s Carbon Beach area, burn scars along the Pacific Coast Highway, and the loss of numerous local businesses. It details how the blaze obliterated over 700 homes and multiple businesses within the city.

The legal action argues that the fire was not simply a natural disaster but was exacerbated by the “unlawful conduct” of the named defendants.

The complaint added that LA and the state prioritized “rare plants over human lives in failing to inspect and address the dangerous burn scar from the Lachman Fire that ignited just days before on its own land – its smoldering embers remaining clearly visible to anyone who cared to look.”

Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters

The suit claims that state employees hindered firefighters’ efforts to cut dry vegetation around the Lachman fire by arguing that the plants needed to be protected.

Malibu also “experienced damage to roads, stormwater systems, public buildings, and open-space lands, as well as significant disruption to tourism, employment, and local revenue,” the city said in its statement.

Specifically, the lawsuit aims to recover “costs associated with emergency response, infrastructure repair, environmental restoration, and lost revenues.”