The families of six of the seven workers killed in a fireworks explosion in Esparto, California, have filed suit against the Esparto Fire Protection District, Fire Chief Curtis Lawrence, the State of California, State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant, Yolo County, and numerous private defendants.

The complaint was filed July 23, 2026, in San Francisco County Superior Court. It arises from a July 1, 2025 explosion at a property located at 26454 County Road 23. The blast killed Carlos Rodriguez Mora, Jhony Jr. Ramos, Jesus Manaces Ramos, Angel Voller, Christopher Goltiao Bocog, Joel Jeremias Melendez, and Neil Li. The explosion also ignited a 78-acre fire and damaged neighboring properties. It appears Li’s family did not join the suit.

According to the complaint, Devastating Pyrotechnics and Blackstar Fireworks used the property to store, assemble, repackage, and process fireworks and explosives. Although the companies held certain state and federal licenses, the plaintiffs claim the property was not approved locally for those activities.

The property was zoned for intensive agricultural use. A building constructed there was represented to county officials as an agricultural building that would be used to store farm equipment or almonds. The plaintiffs allege it was instead used in connection with the fireworks operation.

The complaint alleges county officials had learned about the fireworks operation by June 2022, when a building official received a tip that the property was being used for a pyrotechnics business. An inspection reportedly disclosed approximately 25 shipping containers associated with the operation.

An internal county email chain discussed the need for a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and other compliance requirements. According to the complaint, a county building official reported that Fire Chief Lawrence said the containers appeared to be grouped appropriately and meet fire-separation requirements, but that he would need to verify their compliance.

The plaintiffs allege Chief Lawrence also told the official that the business was licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and was conducting outdoor repackaging and processing in compliance with federal requirements. The complaint claims Chief Lawrence never inspected the property, verified the spacing of the containers, or issued a local fire permit.

According to the complaint:

• No inspections had been conducted at the Subject Property in the past, and ESPARTO and the firefighters were aware of the presence of the fireworks.
• According to [Chief] LAWRENCE, no formal safety inspections or a local fire permit were issued for the Subject Property, despite knowing they were required.”

The plaintiffs claim local fire ordinances required a permit for the storage or handling of more than 500 pounds of hazardous materials or explosives. They further allege the site was never issued a local permit for the storage, handling, assembly, or manufacture of fireworks.

The complaint also alleges no Hazardous Materials Business Plan was submitted for the property. Such a plan is intended to document the hazardous materials at a facility and provide emergency responders with information needed to plan for an incident.

The plaintiffs contend the absence of a local permit was significant because state and federal fireworks licenses did not authorize the companies to operate at a particular location without local approval. They allege local authorities remained responsible for site-specific permitting, inspections, fire-code compliance, and hazardous-materials planning.

The allegations point to what appears to be a gap in expectations. ATF issued the federal license with the expectation that the licensee would obtain and comply with all required state and local permits. Local officials, however, allegedly treated the federal license as an indication that the operation was acceptable without confirming that the required local permits, inspections, and safety plans were in place. The result, according to the complaint, was that each level relied on responsibilities being handled elsewhere, while no one verified that all the requirements had been met.

One of the individual defendants is Craig Cutright, the owner of Blackstar Fireworks. Cutright was also a volunteer firefighter with the Esparto Fire Protection District from 2023 until shortly after the explosion. The complaint alleges Cutright contacted Chief Lawrence in 2021 about expanding the storage and handling of 1.3G display fireworks and 1.4G consumer fireworks at the property. The two allegedly continued communicating by text message while Cutright was a member of the department.

The plaintiffs claim Cutright’s fireworks company held state licenses covering public displays, wholesaling, importing, and exporting, as well as federal explosives-related authority. However, they allege Blackstar never obtained local approval to store hazardous materials at the Esparto property.

The complaint also names State Fire Marshal Daniel Berlant and the Office of the State Fire Marshal. The plaintiffs allege the state was responsible for licensing pyrotechnic operators and fireworks businesses, investigating fireworks violations, and coordinating enforcement with local authorities.

According to the complaint, state investigators participated in a May 2025 raid on a warehouse in Commerce, California, where a large quantity of illegal fireworks connected to Devastating Pyrotechnics was seized. The plaintiffs allege the Office of the State Fire Marshal learned during that investigation that Devastating Pyrotechnics was using the Esparto address but did not inspect or refer the Esparto property for enforcement before the explosion six weeks later.

The suit alleges the conditions at the Esparto property included improperly spaced storage containers, fireworks stored outside approved magazines, the absence of required signage and fire-suppression equipment, and a lack of safety plans, protective equipment, and worker training.

The plaintiffs characterize their claims against the fire district and other public entities as failures to carry out mandatory permitting, inspection, and enforcement duties that existed before the explosion. The complaint expressly states that the claims are not based on the adequacy of the fire department’s suppression response after the fire began.

The complaint asserts negligence based on the alleged breach of mandatory governmental duties, fraud, nuisance, negligent hiring and supervision, wrongful death, premises liability, emotional-distress claims, and several employment-related claims against the private companies. The families seek compensatory and punitive damages, property damages, funeral and burial expenses, lost earnings, and other relief. According to the Sac Bee, the plaintiffs are seeking $35 million in damages.