On May 22, 2025, tenant organizations and individual wildfire survivors filed lawsuits against the City of Pasadena and the County of Los Angeles, alleging the agencies failed to meet their legal obligations to inspect and enforce habitability standards after the January Eaton Fire, which they say left many renters exposed to toxic living conditions.
The lawsuits were filed by the Pasadena Tenants Union, the Altadena Tenants Union, and individual plaintiffs Brenda Lyon and Marley Otto, with legal representation from Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County (NLSLA) and Morrison Foerster LLP.
“These tenants came to us in desperation, and we kept hearing similar stories over and over again,” said Lena Silver, Director of Policy and Administrative Advocacy at NLSLA. “Many tenants have had nowhere to turn when landlords failed to do the right thing and remediate their homes.”
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiffs were displaced by the Eaton Fire, which “destroyed more than 9,400 structures, displaced over 150,000 residents, and was not fully contained for 24 days.” They returned to homes “contaminated with toxic smoke, ash, and soot,” but allege the City of Pasadena and Los Angeles County failed to inspect the units or require landlords to remediate the damage.
“Instead of carrying out inspections that would be the first step toward ensuring that hazards are appropriately addressed,” the press release stated, “both the County and the City have shirked their responsibilities, either not conducting inspections at all despite receiving complaints or conducting inadequate inspections that cannot identify the health risks and impacts of toxic soot smoke, and ash.”
In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that despite the City of Pasadena’s own public advisories about ash exposure risk, city staff repeatedly told tenants that soot and ash contamination were a “civil matter.” The lawsuit cites California Health & Safety Code § 17970.5 and Pasadena Housing Code § 14.12.100, both of which require cities to inspect units when a tenant reports conditions that may constitute a health or safety hazard.
Brenda Lyon, a Pasadena renter and mother of a young child, is quoted in a press release: “Our duplex, which has been our home for seven years, was completely covered in toxic ash and soot. I was terrified to return, not only for my own sake but because I have a baby. I called every office in the City of Pasadena seeking help, and they responded that soot and ash damage is a civil matter, refusing to inspect.”
“We ultimately had to pay for some remediation ourselves, at an exorbitant cost, and even then, the remediation was not complete,” Lyon added. “I should not have had to work so hard to get the City of Pasadena to help me in this time of crisis.”
Marley Otto, another named plaintiff, lived in Pasadena for seven years. According to the court filing, she was forced to evacuate under a mandatory order. Her home was “deemed ‘not safe to live in’ by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).” Otto sought help from the city but, according to the lawsuit, was told by the Code Compliance Division that “they were not responsible for enforcing the cleanup of smoke and ash.”
The legal filing further states that Otto “has paid her full rent” despite being displaced, and that her landlord “has not reimbursed any of the rent she has paid, nor has she provided any rent abatement.”
According to the lawsuit, private environmental testing and public health experts found dangerous levels of toxins in the aftermath of the fire. One cited study by Caltech’s Tissot Lab found that “most of the properties they tested within the Eaton Fire zone and surrounding areas had levels of lead and other heavy metals on indoor surfaces that exceeded EPA limits.”
“Given the risk that lead poisoning represents, particularly for children… proper cleaning of houses downwind of the fire zone is critical to remove as much [of] these contaminants as possible,” the lab concluded.
“I should not have had to work so hard to get the City of Pasadena to help me in this time of crisis.”
Katie Clark of the Altadena Tenants Union stated in the press release: “This is why we exist. Tenants in Altadena deserve to live in safe, habitable homes — just like they did before the fires. We are calling on LA County to do their job, and to protect some of the most vulnerable populations in Altadena.”
AJ Price, speaking for the Pasadena Tenants Union, added: “For years, we’ve fought to make Pasadena a place where tenants are treated with dignity and protected under the law. But after the Eaton Fire, the City turned its back on our most vulnerable residents. This lawsuit is about accountability — and about demanding the basic protections every renter deserves.”
The plaintiffs are seeking a writ of mandate and injunctive relief, asking the court to order the City of Pasadena and County of Los Angeles to carry out inspections, enforce remediation, and stop requiring tenants to handle post-fire contamination alone.
Attorneys say the case may set a precedent for renters’ rights in post-disaster situations. “The law requires the County and the City to take action when called upon to do so by vulnerable tenants facing unsafe housing conditions like those caused by the Eaton Fire,” said O’Byrne. “We’re proud to stand with NLSLA and these tenants to hold local governments accountable and ensure that basic habitability laws are enforced.”
The City of Pasadena had not been served with the lawsuit as of the time of this report and therefore could not comment on the filing, according to the city’s Public Information Officer.
Editor’s Note: A previous version of this article included several direct quotes that were incorrectly attributed. The South Pasadenan and Local News Pasadena regret the error.
