Plaintiffs oppose SoCal Edison settlement protocol

A group of plaintiffs are accusing Southern California Edison Co. of using a new settlement protocol to drive down the value of claims arising from the 2018 Woolsey wildfire that consumed a large swath of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Los Angeles County Judge William F. Highberger, who is presiding over the litigation, has stayed until the fall trials and discovery for all cases. Some lawyers say the protocol is unfair. They want Highberger to lift the stay for those who opt out of the protocol and let them proceed to trial this summer. A recent request by Edison to extend the stay beyond the fall is evidence the protocol is a failure, they say. Edison says the stay is needed because the protocol has been successful. Woolsey Fire cases, JCCP 5000.

"Ever putting a lipstick on the pig, Edison styles this failure a 'success' and claims without support that it 'expects the number of opt-ins and demand packages to accelerate over the next few months,'" Suzelle Smith of Howarth & Smith wrote in a May 6 opposition. Some plaintiffs' rights have been violated in favor of an assumed majority interest, and the settlements Edison has reached so far are "cloaked in secrecy," she argued.

Edison's counsel, John C. Hueston of Hueston Hennigan, has warned the objectors that the protocol is the quickest way to resolve claims and get payouts for their clients. Opting out of the protocol will delay results by years, he said.

Edison has a similar protocol set up for claims from the 2017 Thomas fire in Santa Barbara County that it says has been a success too.

Highberger ordered the stay on the Woolsey cases in March, halting a scheduled Aug. 9 trial date for a bellwether case.

On April 27, Hueston asked the judge to extend the stay. He said more than 100 plaintiffs had already settled and that he needed more time to settle several hundred others that he expected will join. Edison expects to resolve claims of about 6,100 plaintiffs whose lawyers supported the protocol, Hueston wrote. He added that Edison estimates it will settle an average of 150 households per month.

Attorneys who have not put all of their cases in the protocol include Smith and her law partner, Don Howarth; Gerald B. Singleton and J. Ross Peabody of Singleton Schreiber McKenzie and Scott; and sole practitioner Archibald M. Smith.

Suzelle Smith argued that Edison's settlement protocol has yielded dismal results and offers are being made that are significantly less than their worth. Moreover, the secrecy hobbles the plaintiffs negotiations, she said. There is no way to tell if Edison is exploiting the leverage provided by COVID-19 delays, court-ordered stays and trial postponements, she said.

"God bless them for settling with other cases, but you don't just get to say that this is the number they're going to settle at, and if you don't take it, you wait years before you get to trial," Singleton said. "That's not the way the system's supposed to work."

Chris Abel, A spokesperson for Edison, said Friday the utility firmly believes the parties made sufficient progress during the ongoing ramp-up period of the program for Highberger to extend the stay for another 60 days.

A hearing is scheduled May 19 at 1:30 p.m.