(NewsNation) — A lawsuit accuses California of failing to properly respond to a wildfire that preceded the Palisades Fire, leading to the devastating blaze.

According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, the Palisades Fire began on state land. 

But California says it was not its responsibility to monitor or respond to it.

The lead attorney for a suit against the state says that is incorrect, and there is evidence to prove it. He also alleges that the state may have interfered with the Los Angeles Fire Department’s cleanup of an earlier blaze. 

NewsNation has obtained state documents that show the state had a responsibility to close the Topanga State Park after the initial fire, to determine there is no longer a threat to the public.

The Palisades Fire was the worst in LA’s history, taking 12 lives and destroying more than 6,800 structures.

Federal officials say it began on Jan. 1, 2025, when an arsonist started the Lachman Fire.

That fire was thought to be extinguished, but underground embers reignited six days later, starting a second, more deadly fire.

With the Palisades Fire came a storm of controversy. 

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has pointed to climate change as a factor. 

“We’re on the tip of the spear of climate change. Simultaneous droughts and simultaneous foods, the hots are getting hotter, the dry is drier,” he said. “You saw one of the most devastating wildfires in American history in the middle of winter in Los Angeles in January, 100 mph winds attached to the fire.”

In response to a lawsuit from more than 3,000 Palisades residents alleging the state failed to monitor embers from the initial fire, a spokesperson from Newsom’s office told NewsNation the state was not responsible. 

“The state didn’t start this fire (that was an arsonist) and the state wasn’t responsible for responding to or monitoring this fire,” they said. 

But Roger Behle, the lead attorney representing the Palisades families, says Newsom is wrong and the state’s own guidelines prove it was responsible.

“Areas of a park unit which have burned will remain closed until appropriate department staff have inspected the area and rectified any public safety, property or resource protection issues,” guidelines from the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

“It says, where wildfire burns on state park land, the state must close the land until a state park representative has gone up and determined that there are no further hazards to the public,” Behle said. 

But the park wasn’t closed.

“People were able to hike up through there while the embers in the hillside remained active,” Behle said. 

On Jan. 1, a hiker took a video of the fire smoldering. The next day, a different hiker captured the same thing. 

But Behle says the most damning thing is the allegation that a state park representative interfered with the LAFD mop-up of the Lachman Fire, days before the Palisades Fire ignited.

“We have reports of a state park representative coming up to the area of the Lachman burn scar with a map and directing firefighters [on] what they could touch and not touch,” Behle said. “[Where] they could bulldoze, not bulldoze. We know that occurred on Jan. 2.” 

Behle said reports come from people who were in the area.

“People that were present at the Lachman burn scar on the second of January saw a state park rep, with a map, up in the area telling firefighters what they could do and not do in that area,” he said. 

The 911 calls continued, with call logs showing that the next day, Jan. 3, a caller reported seeing wisps of smoke. 

“People say, hey, look, we’re still seeing smoke up there and yet nothing was done and it should have been done by the state,” Behle said. “The state should have been up there until they were certain that there was no risk of a rekindling.” 

NewsNation asked the state parks about this. They declined to answer, citing pending litigation, but they said the park was not closed because the LAFD declared the fire contained.

Newsom’s team did not answer questions from NewsNation and reiterated that the state wasn’t responsible for responding to or monitoring this fire.