Lead: A veteran Los Angeles firefighter testified that smoldering hotspots remained at the Lachman fire on Jan. 2, 2025, and that his warnings were dismissed before crews packed up. The sworn statement by Scott Pike came during depositions in a lawsuit brought by victims of the later Palisades fire, which rekindled from the Lachman burn and killed 12 people. Pike said he found red-hot ash pits and hot rocks while ordered to retrieve hoses, and he told superiors on scene. Days after crews left the site, high winds spread the embers into the deadly Palisades conflagration.
Key Takeaways
- Scott Pike, a 23-year LAFD veteran normally assigned to Sunland, testified that on Jan. 2, 2025 he found at least five smoking areas and an ash pit with glowing coals while picking up hoses.
- Pike says he reported hotspots to fellow firefighters and a captain but felt his concerns were dismissed; he was not interviewed for the department’s after-action review.
- City attorneys initially sealed deposition transcripts, including Pike’s and those of 11 other firefighters, under a protective order that allowed temporary confidentiality for up to 30 days.
- Text messages obtained by the Los Angeles Times show crews and some firefighters warned the battalion chief that terrain was still smoking before equipment was collected.
- Five days after the mop-up, on Jan. 7, 2025, the Lachman area reignited; the Palisades fire destroyed large swaths of Pacific Palisades and resulted in 12 fatalities.
- Plaintiffs allege the state, which manages Topanga State Park, failed to inspect the burn scar between the two fires; prosecutors believe Lachman was intentionally set.
- LAFD leaders have publicly maintained the initial blaze was extinguished; Mayor and city officials ordered independent and internal reviews after press reporting on Oct. 30, 2025.
Background
The Lachman fire ignited just after midnight on Jan. 1, 2025 and was reported contained at about eight acres by 4:46 a.m. that day. LAFD crews completed suppression work and planned mop-up operations to secure the site; mop-up is the standard process to extinguish lingering heat and embers after a fire is contained. On Jan. 2, many firefighters were working extended shifts because the incident occurred over the New Year holiday period.
Federal prosecutors later said the initial fire was likely set deliberately, adding a criminal-investigation layer to civil litigation and administrative reviews. The later Palisades fire, which erupted from the same burn scar amid strong winds, destroyed homes and killed 12 people, prompting lawsuits against both the City of Los Angeles and the State of California. The litigation and media reporting prompted Mayor Bass to direct a series of independent and internal inquiries into the LAFD response and interagency coordination.
Main Event
In recent depositions tied to the Palisades victims’ lawsuit, Scott Pike described arriving at the Lachman scene on Jan. 2 to collect hoses and encountering multiple smoking spots. He said at one ash pit he used his boot to disturb the surface and found glowing coals and audible crackling—signs of active smoldering that can later rekindle in wind. Pike told other crew members and then approached the on-scene captain to suggest a closer sweep and possible change in tactics, but he did not press orders against the chain of command.
Pike said fellow firefighters seemed focused on removing equipment and that he felt his observations were dismissed; he also noted he was working overtime the day after a holiday because others declined the shift. City attorneys later attempted to restrict release of Pike’s testimony along with transcripts from 11 other firefighters by invoking a protective order that allows temporary confidentiality while the parties review material. Of the 11 other deposed firefighters, attorneys for plaintiffs say those witnesses uniformly reported they saw no hotspots.
Private text messages reported by the Los Angeles Times show some crew members warned an incident commander it was risky to leave while the ground remained visibly smoking and rocks were hot to the touch. At 1:35 p.m. on Jan. 2, Battalion Chief Mario Garcia—whom firefighters say received hotspot observations—texted that “all hose and equipment has been picked up.” Five days later an LAFD captain called Station 23 to report the flare-up that became the Palisades fire.
LAFD leadership initially told the public the Lachman blaze had been fully extinguished. At a Jan. 16, 2025 community meeting then-Fire Chief Kristin Crowley and Chief Deputy Joe Everett said the fire was “dead out” and that crews do not leave any active hot spots. After media reporting and litigation, newly appointed Chief Jaime Moore opened an internal Professional Standards Division inquiry and asked national fire research experts to add the Lachman incident to their review.
Analysis & Implications
The dispute over whether mop-up was complete highlights a recurring tension in wildfire operations: the balance between clearing resources to allow full containment of multiple incidents and ensuring meticulous cooling of burn scars. When weather is benign the risk of rekindle is lower, but forecast strong winds—like those that arrived days later—significantly raise the stakes for any remaining smoldering material. If hotspots were present and overlooked, that would indicate procedural or communication breakdowns at the incident level.
Legally, the testimony sharpens two parallel lines of accountability: plaintiffs argue the city failed in suppression duties, while they contend the state failed to monitor parkland owned by California State Parks during the week between fires. Civil liability will hinge on whether conduct fell below the reasonable professional standard and whether a breach was a proximate cause of the Palisades tragedy. Prosecutors’ belief that the Lachman origin was deliberate complicates causation but does not remove obligations for post-incident monitoring and mop-up.
Institutionally, this episode could prompt changes in the LAFD’s post-incident reporting, mandatory debriefing of all on-scene personnel about hotspots, and formal requirements for interagency inspections of burn scars on state-managed land. Independent reviews already under way—requested by the mayor, city council and fire chief—may recommend procedural reforms, new oversight checkpoints, and improved text-message archiving for accountability. The public and litigants will watch whether investigations produce disciplinary action, policy changes, or both.
Comparison & Data
| Event | Date | Acreage | Fatalities | Reported Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lachman fire (initial) | Jan. 1–2, 2025 | 8 acres (contained) | 0 | Reported contained; hotspots later alleged |
| Palisades fire (rekindle) | Jan. 7, 2025 | Large urban wildfire | 12 | Destroyed homes; major loss of life |
The table contrasts the contained acreage reported the morning after the initial blaze with the human toll of the subsequent Palisades fire. While the Lachman incident was small in acreage, its location above Pacific Palisades and the forecasted winds transformed remaining embers into a catastrophic event. Small initial burns can pose outsized risk when adjacent to urban development and during high-wind conditions.
Reactions & Quotes
Victims’ attorneys and fire-service reform advocates seized on Pike’s testimony as evidence of ignored warnings. They argue the depositions show a gap between what some crews observed and official public statements about extinguishment.
“I kicked an ash pit and found red-hot coals and audible crackling — I raised it up the line and it went unanswered,”
Scott Pike, LAFD firefighter (deposition)
City attorneys and some other deposed firefighters maintain the official position that no dangerous hotspots were present when equipment was collected. Officials stress chain-of-command rules and say final decisions rest with incident commanders, who must weigh personnel, equipment and broader operational priorities.
“Commanders reported the scene as cold and all equipment cleared; that remains the department’s account,”
City/LAFD official (public statements)
Plaintiffs’ counsel framed Pike’s account as the lone truthful dissent among multiple depositions and called for accountability and broader investigation. Legal representatives for victims say the testimony supports claims that both city and state oversight failures contributed to the later disaster.
“Only one firefighter told the truth about visible hotspots while others said they saw none; that discrepancy is central to our case,”
Alex Robertson, plaintiffs’ attorney
Unconfirmed
- Whether the battalion chief knowingly disregarded explicit, verbal warnings about hotspots remains contested and not independently verified.
- It is unproven that a state inspection between Jan. 2 and Jan. 7 would definitively have detected and prevented the rekindle.
- The precise causal chain—whether remaining smoldering material alone, or a combination with weather and ignition source—caused the Palisades fire is still subject to investigation.
Bottom Line
The sworn testimony of Scott Pike adds a vivid first-person account to a dossier of text messages and internal communications that the public and plaintiffs’ lawyers say indicate lapses in post-incident procedures. Whether those lapses constitute legal negligence will be decided through civil litigation and parallel administrative reviews; independent investigations commissioned by city and outside experts are expected to produce recommendations.
For policy and public safety, the episode underscores how even small, contained fires demand exhaustive mop-up and clear, documented handoffs—especially when adjacent to populated areas and when high winds are forecast. The findings of the ongoing inquiries will shape LAFD practices, interagency inspection protocols on state land, and possibly broader state and municipal wildfire oversight.