Notice: SCAC Restructuring

The Stanford Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is currently under construction and is temporarily unavailable as it undergoes updates and improvements. The Clearinghouse is expected to return as part of the Stanford Rock Center for Corporate Governance in Winter 2026.

During this period, updates and new filings will not be available.

For urgent inquiries, please contact rockprograms@law.stanford.edu.

Processing your request


please wait...

Case Page

 

Case Status:    DISMISSED  
—On or around 02/18/2025 (Notice of voluntarily dismissal)
Current/Last Presiding Judge:  
Hon. Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.

Filing Date: February 11, 2025

According to the Complaint, Edison International is the parent holding company of Southern California Edison Company (“SCE”) and Edison Energy Group, Inc. (“Edison Energy Group”). SCE is an investor-owned public utility primarily engaged in the business of supplying and delivering electricity to an approximately 50,000 square mile area of southern California. Edison Energy Group is a holding company for Edison Energy, LLC which is engaged in the competitive business of providing energy services to commercial and industrial customers. This lawsuit was filed against Edison International and two of its Officers.

On January 7, 2025, a fire began in the area of Eaton Canyon (the “Eaton Canyon Fire”) in the unincorporated census designated place in Los Angeles County, California, called Altadena. On January 13, 2025, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles alleging that the fires originated from Edison’s power lines. The complaint included eye-witness accounts and photographs that showed the fire was started by Edison’s electrical equipment.

According to the Complaint, Defendants throughout the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Edison’s claim that Southern California Edison Company used its Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") program to “proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events”, was false; (2) this resulted in heightened fire risk in California and heightened legal exposure to the Company; and (3) as a result, Defendants’ statements about Edison’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times.

The Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case on February 18, 2025.

Protected Content


Please Log In or Sign Up for a free account to access restricted features of the Clearinghouse website, including the Advanced Search form and the full case pages.

When you sign up, you will have the option to save your search queries performed on the Advanced Search form.