**Simple Avo Paradise Ranch Files Inverse Condemnation Complaint Against Southern California Edison Company**
On March 25, 2019, Simple Avo Paradise Ranch, LLC filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County against Southern California Edison Company (SCE), alleging inverse condemnation. The case, identified as B320948 and JCCP No. 4965, was presided over by Judge Daniel J. Buckley.
The complaint stems from the devastating Thomas Fire that occurred in December 2017, which was one of the largest and most destructive fires in California's history. Simple Avo Paradise Ranch claims that SCE's aging and improperly maintained electrical infrastructure caused the fire that led to significant damage to their avocado farm in Ventura County. The plaintiff asserts that SCE failed to de-energize its power lines despite warnings of high winds and hazardous conditions on the day of the fire.
Before filing this lawsuit, Simple Avo had aligned itself with other plaintiffs who had already filed master complaints against SCE for similar damages. These master complaints alleged that SCE's infrastructure was unsafe and inadequately maintained, contributing to multiple wildfires over the years. The trial court had previously overruled SCE’s demurrer to these master complaints, allowing the inverse condemnation cause of action to proceed.
In January 2022, Simple Avo reached a settlement with SCE for $1.75 million on their inverse condemnation claim while dismissing all other causes of action with prejudice. However, this settlement was contingent upon SCE’s right to appeal the trial court’s earlier demurrer ruling. This stipulation led to an unusual set of circumstances where both parties sought immediate appellate review without proceeding through a full trial.
The crux of Simple Avo's argument lies in established precedents such as Barham v. Southern Cal. Edison Co., which held that privately-owned utilities like SCE could be liable for inverse condemnation similar to public entities due to their quasi-monopolistic status granted by state franchises. Furthermore, Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co., reinforced this stance by rejecting arguments that private utilities could not spread losses through rate increases without CPUC approval.
SCE contends that it should not be held liable under inverse condemnation because it is a privately-owned utility lacking unilateral authority to raise rates—a point they argue is supported by a 2017 CPUC decision denying San Diego Gas & Electric's request for a rate increase following another fire incident.
Simple Avo seeks just compensation for damages under article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, arguing that their property was damaged due to inherent risks associated with SCE’s public improvement (the electrical distribution system). They maintain that SCE's failure to adequately maintain its infrastructure constitutes negligence and deliberate cost-saving measures at the expense of safety.
Representing Simple Avo are attorneys from Glynn, Finley, Morti, Hanlon & Friedenberg including Clement L. Glynn and James M. Hanlon Jr., among others from various amicus curiae groups supporting their position such as National Association of Subrogation Professionals and Consumer Attorneys of California.
On behalf of SCE are attorneys from Hueston Hennigan including John C. Hueston and Douglas J. Dixon along with representatives from several law firms acting as amicus curiae like Vinson & Elkins for Edison Electric Institute and Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom for Nextera Energy Resources LLC.
This case underscores significant legal questions about the applicability of inverse condemnation principles to privately-owned utilities operating under state-granted monopolies and highlights ongoing debates about liability distribution following large-scale disasters caused by utility infrastructure failures.