Amanda L. Riddle

In the first case-management order on March 17, 2025, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Laura Seigle appointed Amanda L. Riddle one of three liaison counsel for the individual plaintiffs in the Eaton Fire litigation. More than one hundred law firms were representing fire survivors. The liaison lawyers became the point of coordination between those firms, the court and the other parties while the cases moved on a common schedule.

Riddle had held similar positions before. In Eaton, the early work included organizing how individual plaintiffs would participate, preserving physical evidence and collecting ignition and utility records for the common case. Her role did not replace each family's lawyer or damages claim. The court's liaison procedures gave the separate cases a shared calendar and channel for communication.

She joined Gibbs Mura in the Corey Gibbs Fire Lawyers consortium, representing households and businesses in Altadena. Riddle said the aim was to resolve the cases swiftly enough for the community to move forward while pursuing Southern California Edison for the losses the plaintiffs attributed to its equipment.

The Loss Behind Each Claim

Riddle has represented more than six thousand people harmed by utility-caused wildfires and explosions. Recoveries for those clients have exceeded $1.5 billion. Those recoveries still required different records for different losses: rebuilding a home, replacing a business, lost income, temporary displacement, permanent injury, damaged property or a wrongful death.

Her teams assemble those records family by family while experts address the common questions of ignition, spread and utility conduct. Mediation must account for the differences among claims, and client communication has to continue even after evacuation has scattered people across different cities and states. The same litigation therefore requires a shared liability record and separate proof of what each client lost.

From San Bruno to the Fire Victim Trust

Riddle attended the University of California, Santa Barbara, and graduated from the University of San Francisco School of Law in 2001. She received the Edward J. McFetridge Award for trial advocacy the year before graduation and later became managing partner of her Millbrae firm.

In 2010, when a PG&E gas transmission pipeline exploded beneath San Bruno a few miles from her office, killing residents and leveling a neighborhood, Riddle served as plaintiffs' co-liaison counsel. She again served as co-liaison counsel after the 2015 Butte Fire. The 2017 North Bay fires and the 2018 Camp Fire led into PG&E's bankruptcy, where Riddle was part of the plaintiffs' team that negotiated the $13.5 billion settlement establishing the Fire Victim Trust.

She remains one of nine members of the Trust Oversight Committee, which represents fire claimants' interests as the fund is administered. That work extends past settlement into claim evaluation and distribution for tens of thousands of survivors. Riddle also serves on the board of the Consumer Attorneys of California, where she had served a decade earlier, received her firm's George R. Corey Trial Lawyer of the Year Award in 2022, manages the firm and handles business and employment litigation.

The August 2026 Cause Finding

On August 4, 2026, the Los Angeles County Fire Department released the results of its investigation conducted jointly with CAL FIRE. After eighteen months of review, investigators concluded that the Eaton Fire was caused by electrical arcing events on an out-of-service Southern California Edison transmission tower. The official cause finding established what ignited the fire; the civil litigation still had to address the legal responsibility and individual losses asserted by the plaintiffs.

“Edison prioritized profits over safety,” Riddle said, “and we are committed to helping survivors pursue their legal rights and hold Edison accountable.” The statement reflected the plaintiffs' position, not a completed liability judgment. Her liaison work continued to require coordination of the common case while each household or business developed the evidence supporting its own claim.