Lexi J. Hazam

Hazam is co-chair of Lieff Cabraser’s personal injury and mass tort practice group. She’s deeply involved in complex litigation as co-lead individual plaintiffs’ counsel targeting Southern California Edison Co. in two major California wildfire cases.

In the December 2017 Thomas Fire and subsequent Montecito mud slide coordinated cases, she and other lawyers informed the court in early October they had a “settlement protocol” in place and asked for a trial date delay so they could continue to negotiate. Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Daniel J. Buckley set a Dec. 9 hearing for further discussion of the potential deal. Thomas Fire, JCCP 4965 (L.A. Super. Ct., coord. April 16, 2018).

Details were under wraps, but “Edison has set aside more than $4 billion for the two cases,” Hazam said, referring to both the Thomas Fire and the Woolsey Fire, which ignited in November 2018. She is on the leadership team of plaintiffs’ attorneys in both cases. Woolsey Fire, JCCP 5000 (L.A. Super. Ct., coord. May 31, 2019).

The Thomas Fire fire started on Dec. 14, 2017 in Ventura County, spread to Santa Barbara County and led to the January 18 debris and mudslide that killed 23, injured more than 100 and caused at least $177 million in property damage. The Woolsey Fire in Los Angeles and Ventura counties killed three, forced the evacuation of more than 295,000 people and destroyed more than 1,500 structures.

Hazam and colleagues have spent months seeking an official investigation report into the cause and origin of the Woolsey fire. In mid-October Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge William F. Highberger ordered the release of a more complete version of the document, but delayed his order for two weeks to allow state officials to appeal. Its release has been opposed by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who said his prosecutors would make a criminal charging decision regarding Edison by year’s end and wanted the report sealed until then.

“Edison is known to have told its shareholders that its equipment started the fire,” Hazam said. Earlier, in another part of the case, she argued that the plaintiffs should be compensated for their losses under the inverse condemnation doctrine, a view opposed by Edison absent a rate increase to fund the payouts.

Hazam pointed out that Edison has more than $23 billion in market capital and equity. “It would be fundamentally unfair for the victims…to go uncompensated for their injuries so that Edison’s investors—who have already benefited from Edison’s calculated risks—can enjoy stronger financial returns,” she wrote in court papers.

As for the potential Thomas settlement, she said, “Nothing restores homes or loved ones, but it would be a milestone in getting justice for the victims.”

— John Roemer