negligence

Federal prosecutors on Thursday sued Southern California Edison over its alleged role in the deadly Eaton fire, a blaze that killed 19 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes and other structures in Altadena and the surrounding area.

In a civil complaint, prosecutors allege that the Eaton fire was ignited by “faulty power infrastructure or by sparks from faulty power infrastructure owned, maintained, and operated” by Edison.

The results of the official investigation of the fire by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection have not yet been announced. The government’s lawsuit notes that the investigation into the fire remains ongoing.

The government also sued Edison on Thursday for its alleged role in the Fairview fire, which burned near Hemet in 2022. Prosecutors are seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages from Edison, alleging the company’s negligence caused both fires.

Together, the fires burned tens of thousands of acres of National Forest System lands, killed 21 people and destroyed thousands of buildings, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles.

Acting U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli said “there’s no reason to wait” for the results of the investigation into the Eaton fire. During a Thursday morning news conference, Essayli cited evidence and “Edison’s own statements … that there’s no other apparent cause for the fire.”

“We believe that the evidence is clear that Edison is at fault,” he said. “The reason not to wait is because fire season is coming up again. We want Edison to change the way it does business. It does not maintain its infrastructure in a way to prevent fires. We do not want another fire igniting.”

Essayli stressed that the intention is for the utility company and “not the ratepayers” to bear the burden of the costs.

“Innocent hardworking Californians who pay their electricity bills should not have to pay for Edison’s negligence by incurring higher utility rates,” he said.

Jeff Monford, a spokesman for Southern California Edison, told The Times that the company is reviewing the lawsuits “and will respond through the appropriate channels.” It is “committed to wildfire mitigation through grid hardening, situational awareness and enhanced operational practices.”

In addition, he said, “our thoughts are with the community affected by the Fairview fire. We continue our work to reduce the likelihood of our equipment starting a wildfire.”

Although the cause of the Eaton fire is still under investigation, Monford said, it “was heartbreaking for so many of us who live and work in the Los Angeles area.”

In April, Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of Edison International, the utility’s parent company, said that “a leading hypothesis” of Eaton fire investigators was that a century-old transmission line, last used during the Vietnam War, somehow became reenergized and sparked the fire.

The government’s lawsuit cites a July Edison filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in which the utility company stated it was “not aware of evidence pointing to another possible source of ignition” for the Eaton fire.

In March, the California Public Utilities Commission fined Edison $2.2 million for the Fairview fire, which killed two people and destroyed 36 homes and other structures in Hemet.

The commission said the utility violated state regulations by failing to cooperate with investigators and not safely maintaining its electrical equipment.

State investigators concluded that the 2022 Fairview fire was ignited when Edison’s equipment came in contact with a cable owned by Frontier Communications.

The government is seeking more than $40 million in damages tied to the Eaton fire. For the Fairview fire, the government is seeking to recover about $37 million in damages incurred by the Forest Service, including approximately $20 million in fire-suppression costs, according to the U.S. attorney’s office in L.A.

“The lawsuits filed today allege a troubling pattern of negligence resulting in death, destruction, and tens of millions of federal taxpayer dollars spent to clean up one utility company’s mistakes,” Essayli said in a written statement Thursday.

“We hope that today’s filings are the first step in causing the beginnings of a culture change at Southern California Edison, one that will make it a responsible, conscientious company that helps — not harms — our community.”

Edison is facing dozens of lawsuits from people who lost their homes or businesses in the Jan. 7 Eaton fire. A study by UCLA estimated that losses from the fire could be $24 billion to $45 billion.

State officials say damage claims from the Eaton fire could wipe out a $21-billion fund California created to shield utilities from the cost of blazes sparked by their electrical lines.

Cardi B’s infamous microphone-throw incident is being raised again, almost two years after it took place in Las Vegas.

An Ohio woman is suing the 32-year-old “Bodak Yellow” rapper, claiming battery, assault and negligence. The owners of Drai’s Beachclub and Nightclub, where the incident took place on July 29, 2023, are also being sued for negligence. The suit was filed days before the statute of limitations in Nevada for such charges ran out.

According to court documents filed in Clark County on Monday, the plaintiff — who chose to go by Jane Doe because of “psychiatric trauma” — alleges that during Cardi B’s performance, she encouraged the audience to “splash water on her” amid “visibly high-temperature conditions.” Though she initially approved, allegedly pouring water on herself and stating “Wooh that s— feel good,” it was when the plaintiff partook that the rapper abruptly and “forcefully” threw her microphone.

The object is said to have hit Jane Doe, with Cardi B shouting “I said splash my p—, not my face, b—.” Documents called it an “unreasonable escalation” that resulted in “harmful and offensive contact.” Though the deed was investigated by police at the time, the rapper was not charged. Representatives for Cardi B did not immediately respond on Thursday to The Times’ request for comment.

Just weeks later the microphone was auctioned on eBay and fetched $99,000. It is a key part of the case, as Jane Doe claims the sale “exacerbated emotional distress.” At the time, sellers told TMZ that the money would be given to two charities — the Wounded Warrior Project and Friendship Circle Las Vegas, a local program that helps individuals with special needs.

The plaintiff is seeking damages up to $15,000 for alleged physical and emotional injuries, as well as reputational harm.

Judge Julieta Makintach was accused of participating in a documentary about the famed football player’s death.

One of the three judges presiding over a negligence trial related to the death of Argentinian football player Diego Maradona has resigned, leaving the case’s future uncertain.

On Tuesday, Judge Julieta Makintach announced she would recuse herself after reports emerged that she had participated in a documentary about Maradona’s death and its aftermath.

“This is a judicial tragedy,” said Fernando Burlando, a lawyer for Maradona’s eldest daughters, Dalma and Gianinna.

Judges are largely forbidden from taking part in interviews and other public commentary while proceedings are ongoing. Since March 11, Makintach has been part of a three-judge panel weighing the fate of seven healthcare workers who tended to Maradona during his final days.

The seven have been charged with negligent homicide following Maradona’s death by cardiac arrest in 2020 at age 60.

It is a high-profile case that has stirred a great deal of scrutiny in Argentina. Maradona is a national hero, having led the national football squad to a World Cup victory in 1986.

His performance in that year’s World Cup tournament has since become the stuff of sporting legend. Even a foul he committed during the quarterfinal has been dubbed the “Hand of God”, since it led to an Argentinian victory over England – a rival with whom the country had an ongoing territorial dispute.

In 2000, the football governing body, FIFA, named Maradona one of its two “Players of the Century”, alongside Brazil’s Pele.

But Maradona struggled with addiction, and he passed away shortly after undergoing brain surgery for a blood clot. The circumstances of his death, in turn, led to questions about whether the football player received adequate medical care in his final days.

The seven defendants include a neurosurgeon, a psychiatrist, nurses and other healthcare professionals who attended to him. They face up to 25 years in prison if convicted. An eighth person is expected to face court separately.

More than 190 witnesses are expected to testify against the seven main defendants. One coroner already told the court in March that Maradona’s death “was foreseeable” and that the football player likely died in “agony”.

But the trial was brought to a halt last week when one of the key defendants, Leopoldo Luque, called for Judge Makintach to be removed from the bench.

Luque was a neurosurgeon and a personal doctor to Maradona when he died. Luque’s lawyer, Julio Rivas, told the court that his client had been approached by the BBC, a British news company, to take part in the documentary.

Through that interaction, Rivas explained they found out that the documentary’s production company had ties to Judge Makintach’s brother, Juan Makintach.

Police also indicated that they had seen a camera in the courtroom, allegedly approved by Judge Makintach.

On May 20, prosecutor Patricio Ferrari called for the trial to be paused for a week while the incident was reviewed. Footage was presented to the court from the documentary, showing the start of the trial. It appeared to feature the judge as a central figure.

Judge Makintach has denied wrongdoing. But Ferrari argued, “The situation compromises the prestige of the judiciary.”

It is unclear whether a new judge will replace Makintach in the coming months.