Filing Deadlines for Eaton Fire Survivors

The Eaton fire ignited on January 7, 2025. Many of the most consequential filing deadlines that apply to individual claims arising out of the fire have therefore already run, are running, or are approaching. This post is a short overview of the principal deadlines, what tolls them, and where survivors most often miss them.

The two-year personal-injury statute

California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal-injury claims, and the same period generally applies to wrongful-death claims under § 335.1 and related provisions. For most Eaton fire personal-injury and wrongful-death claims, this means:

• The clock started running on or shortly after January 7, 2025
• The two-year deadline runs in early January 2027 unless tolled
• Late filings after that date are generally barred unless an exception applies

For property-loss claims, the statute is generally three years under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 338(b), running on a similar trigger. For some claims — for example, those grounded in inverse condemnation or specific statutory causes of action — different periods may apply.

The two-year window is the headline number, but the survivor population that has not yet engaged counsel by the second anniversary of the fire is usually small. Most engagement happens in the first six months.

The six-month government-claims deadline

California Government Code § 911.2 imposes a six-month presentation deadline on claims against public entities. For any claim against the State of California, Los Angeles County, the City of Pasadena (where applicable), the Altadena-area service districts, or any other public entity that may share responsibility, the claim form generally had to be presented within six months of the incident.

For the Eaton fire, the six-month window ran in early July 2025. Survivors who did not present a timely government claim by that date may face a late-claim-relief application, which is available only in narrow circumstances under Government Code § 911.4. Late-claim relief is sometimes granted; it is never reliable.

The number of Eaton fire survivors who missed the government-claims deadline because they did not understand its applicability has been a significant population. For most of those survivors, the underlying tort claim against private defendants (including SCE) is unaffected and remains within the two-year and three-year California periods. But the government-entity component of their claim is generally lost unless late-claim relief is available.

What tolls the deadline

Several doctrines can toll (pause or extend) the otherwise-running deadline:

• Minority and incapacity tolling under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 352. Claims of minors are generally tolled until the minor reaches age 18; claims of persons lacking legal capacity are generally tolled while the incapacity continues.
• Discovery rule for latent or non-obvious harms. The discovery rule generally postpones accrual until the claimant knew or, with reasonable diligence, should have known of the injury and its likely cause. For wildfire claims, the discovery rule is rarely the analysis — the injury and its general cause are usually obvious — but for medical conditions that develop over time after fire-related exposure, the rule can apply.
• Class-action tolling under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and California's own equivalent doctrine. Filing of a putative class action that includes a particular claimant can toll that claimant's individual statute, though the rule is fact-specific and the class-action posture in mass-tort proceedings is not always clean.
• Equitable tolling in specific narrow circumstances.

For most Eaton fire survivors, none of these tolling doctrines are the primary basis for keeping a claim alive — the principal deadlines are still running well within the two- and three-year windows. But for survivors with claims against public entities who missed the six-month presentation deadline, the late-claim provisions of Gov. Code § 911.4 are the relevant analysis.

Where deadlines most often get missed

Three patterns the firm has seen in Eaton fire matters:

1. The government-claim window. Survivors who initially focused on insurance and emergency assistance, and only began thinking about tort representation in the second half of 2025, frequently missed the six-month government-claims deadline against public entities. Where the survivor has cognizable claims against public entities (county responders, water-supply agencies, etc.), the missed deadline is consequential.

2. The "I have a class lawsuit" misunderstanding. Some survivors believed that the existence of a high-profile class or coordinated proceeding meant their individual deadlines had been tolled or addressed. The class-action tolling doctrine has limits, and a JCCP — which is not a class action — does not generally toll an individual claimant's deadlines automatically. Survivors who did not file individually may face problems independent of the existence of the proceeding.

3. Out-of-state survivors. California residents living elsewhere when the fire occurred who lost property in Altadena, and Altadena residents who relocated after the fire, sometimes do not realize that California's deadlines apply regardless of where they currently live. The fact of the underlying loss, not the current residence, drives the analysis.

What to do today

For any Eaton fire survivor who has not addressed the deadline question with counsel, the right step is a no-cost initial consultation. The firm can identify which deadlines have run, which are running, which may be tolled, and what late-claim or alternative paths may still be available.

Please contact the firm if that would be useful.

This article is general information and not legal advice. Filing deadlines are fact-specific, and tolling and late-claim doctrines are nuanced; specific situations need specific review with current authority.