A wrongful death lawsuit has been filed against Southern California Edison and Genasys, Inc., the emergency alert vendor for Los Angeles County, regarding the tragic Eaton fire that occurred on January 7, 2025. The suit alleges that a flawed design in Genasys’ emergency alert system contributed to the late delivery of evacuation orders to residents west of Lake Avenue, leading to a significant loss of life.
During a press conference held at the Altadena Library on November 17, 2025, attorney Mikal Watts of LA Fire Justice described the situation as a case of “digital redlining.” He emphasized that the algorithm used by Genasys failed to provide timely alerts, resulting in 18 of the 19 fatalities occurring on the west side of Lake Avenue. “Somebody built an algorithm that had no basis in fact, in risk assessment, in science,” Watts stated, highlighting the stark division marked by a yellow line on a map displayed at the event.
The family of Stacey Darden, one of the victims, is pursuing the lawsuit. Her sister, Gerry Darden, who attended the press conference, expressed deep frustration with the emergency response. “Edison started this fire, and Genasys never warned her that she was in danger,” Gerry Darden said. She noted that her sister had been following evacuation orders closely on the night of the fire, stating, “If these companies had done what they were supposed to do, Stacey would be alive today.”
According to the lawsuit, the first report of the fire was made around 11 p.m. on January 7, but alerts for residents west of Lake Avenue were not issued until approximately 3 a.m. The full alert for that area was delayed by an additional two hours. This lengthy delay has raised serious concerns regarding the effectiveness of the emergency alert system.
Officials from Southern California Edison confirmed on November 17 that they are reviewing the lawsuit. Spokesperson David Eisenhauer expressed sympathy for those affected by the wildfires, stating, “We understand the tremendous impacts on the community and our hearts are with everyone who was affected.” The utility has faced numerous lawsuits related to the Eaton fire and has initiated its own compensation program for victims, although applicants must waive their right to sue.
The lawsuit also claims that Genasys designed its alert system prior to the disaster, failing to adapt to real-time changes in weather conditions or other critical factors. Watts drew a comparison between Genasys’ service and the infamous Ford Pinto, suggesting that it was poorly engineered and unsafe.
An after-action report commissioned by Los Angeles County and produced by the McChrystal Group highlighted several weaknesses in the emergency alert system, including outdated policies and communication vulnerabilities. Although the report did not assign specific blame, it noted that inadequate staffing levels in the county’s emergency management department and limited cellular coverage exacerbated the situation.
In light of these findings, LA Fire Justice attorneys reiterated their stance that negligence on the part of Southern California Edison and Genasys contributed to the tragedy. The lawsuit alleges both negligence and defects in the design and manufacture of Genasys’ alert system.
Chris Holden, CEO of LA Fire Justice and a former state representative, attended the press conference and reflected on the loss of Stacey Darden. “Stacey deserved better. We all deserved better,” he stated. Holden emphasized the importance of accountability and learning from past mistakes to prevent future tragedies.
Stacey Darden, who moved to Southern California from Philadelphia in 1978, had a rich educational background, graduating from Bryn Mawr College with a degree in political science. She had pursued a career in library and information science, and her family described her as a dedicated individual who was engaged in her community.
As the lawsuit progresses, the Darden family and their legal team hope to shed light on the systemic failures that contributed to the devastating loss of life during the Eaton fire. The outcome of this case may have significant implications for emergency management practices and the accountability of utility companies in California and beyond.
