1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & 

HECHT LLP 

John M. Pierce (SBN 250443) 

jpierce@piercebainbridge.com 

Thomas D. Warren (SBN 160921) 

twarren@piercebainbridge.com 

355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

(213) 262-9333 

LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP 

Michael I. Gottfried (SBN 146689) 

mgottfried@lgbfirm.com 

Roye Zur (SBN 273875) 

rzur@lgbfirm.com 

1880 Century Park East, Suite 1101 

Los Angeles, California 90067 

Tel: (310) 557-0050 

Fax: (310) 557-0056 

Attorneys for Interested Parties 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

and 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

 Case No. 19-30088 (Jointly Administered) 

Chapter 11 

OBJECTION TO MOTION OF 

DEBTORS PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 

502(b)(9) AND 105(a), FED. R. BANKR. 

P. 2002, 3003(c)(3), 5005, AND 9007, AND 

L.B.R. 3003-1 FOR ORDER (I) 

ESTABLISHING DEADLINE FOR 

FILING PROOFS OF CLAIM, (II) 

ESTABLISHING THE FORM AND 

MANNER OF NOTICE THEREOF, AND 

(III) APPROVING PROCEDURES FOR 

PROVIDING NOTICE OF BAR DATE 

AND OTHER INFORMATION TO ALL 

CREDITORS AND POTENTIAL 

CREDITORS (THE “BAR DATE 

MOTION”) 

Hearing Date and Time: 

Date: June 11, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: Courtroom 17 

 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Affects: 

 PG&E Corporation 

 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

 Both Debtors 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 1 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

i 

CONTENTS 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ..................................................................................................... 1

FACTS ............................................................................................................................................ 2

The Devastating Wildfires ...................................................................................... 2

The Debtors File For Bankruptcy ............................................................................ 3

The Debtors File a Motion to Set a Bar Date .......................................................... 4

1. The Wildfire Proof of Claim Form ............................................................. 4

2. Wildfire Claimants Must Refile Proofs of Claim ........................................ 5

3. The Debtors Seek to Foreclose Class Protections ....................................... 5

The Tort Committee Files A Motion Proposing Its Own Proof of Claim 

Form for Wildfire Claimants ................................................................................... 6

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 6

The Debtors Seek to Impose an Unnecessary Burden By Way of The 

Wildfire Proof Of Claim Form ................................................................................ 9

The Debtors Seek to Reverse the Burden of Production and Expunge 

Otherwise Valid Claims ........................................................................................ 11

The Debtors Seek to Prematurely and Improperly Eviscerate Class

Protections That Might Otherwise Protect Wildfire Claimants ............................ 12

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 14

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 2 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

In re Anderson-Walker Indus., Inc., 

798 F.2d 1285 (9th Cir. 1986) ................................................................................................9, 10 

In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, 

Case No. 11-20059 (SVK) (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. July 14, 2011), ECF No. 331 ..............12, 14, 16 

In re Birting Fisheries, Inc., 

92 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 1996) ..........................................................................................................9 

In re Burkett, 

329 B.R. 820 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005) ........................................................................................9

In re Connaught Grp., Ltd., 

491 B.R. 88 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013) .............................................................................10, 15, 16 

In re Deutsch-Sokol, 

290 B.R. 27 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) .................................................................................................8, 12 

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 

Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. July 30, 2015), ECF No. 5171 ........................12, 13, 14, 16 

In re First All. Mortg. Co., 

269 B.R. 428 (C.D. Cal. 2001) ...............................................................................................9, 15 

In re Garvida, 

347 B.R. 697 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006) ..............................................................................10, 13, 14 

In re Gianulias, 

2013 WL 1397430 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013) .......................................................................9 

In re Hart Ski Mfg. Co., 

5 B.R. 326 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1980) ..............................................................................................8 

Herndon v. PG&E Corp., 

No. 19-03005 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. May 13, 2019), ECF No. 21 ....................................................3 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 3 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 iii 

In re Holm, 

931 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1991) ........................................................................................................9 

In re King, 

165 B.R. 296 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994) .................................................................................10, 13 

In re Sequoia Senior Solutions, Inc., 

2017 WL 2533345 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. June 9, 2017) ..................................................................15 

In re TK Holdings Inc., 

Case No. 17-11375 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 4, 2017), ECF No. 959 ........................................12, 13 

In re USA Gymnastics, 

Case No. 18-09108 (RLM) (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 2018), ECF No. 301 ................12, 14, 16 

In re Walston, 

606 F. App’x 543 (11th Cir. 2015) .............................................................................................10 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a) ...................................................................................................................1 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(c) ...................................................................................................................8 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) .............................................................................................................8, 13 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014 .....................................................................................................................15 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a) ...................................................................................................................1 

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f) .............................................................................................................8, 13 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 .........................................................................................................................9, 15 

9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.01 ..............................................................................................8 

9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.02 ..............................................................................................8 

9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.07 ..............................................................................................9 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 4 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 

Interested Parties David Herndon, Julia Herndon, Gabriell Herndon, Jedidiah Herndon, 

Estefania Miranda, Steven Jones, Gabriella’s Eatery, Chico Rent-a-Fence, and Ponderosa Pest & 

Weed Control respectfully submit this response to the Motion of Debtors Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 

502(b)(9) and 105(a), Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002, 3003(c)(3), 5005, and 9007, and L.B.R. 3003-1 for 

Order (I) Establishing Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim, (II) Establishing the Form and Manner 

of Notice Thereof, and (III) Approving Procedures for Providing Notice of Bar Date and Other 

Information to Creditors and Potential Creditors [ECF No. 1784] (the “Bar Date Motion”) 

brought by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (collectively the “Debtors”) 

and to the Motion of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) 

and 501 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a) for Entry of an Order Approving Proposed Model Proof of 

Claim Form for Fire Claims and Related Procedures [ECF No. 1824] (the “TC Motion”) brought 

by the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “Tort Committee”), and in support thereof, 

represent as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

Through the Bar Date Motion and related proposed form of order [ECF No. 1784, Ex. A] 

(the “Proposed Order”), the Debtors seek to impose hurdles on wildfire victims that likely would 

result in the loss of substantial legitimate claims held by the wildfire victims against the Debtors. 

The Debtors’ suggested revisions to the procedures and information required by Official Proof of 

Claim Form 410 are particularly onerous in that the Debtors seek to foist these additional 

procedures on those creditors least capable of shouldering them. And, significantly, absent 

compliance with these onerous procedures, the wildfire victims may be forever barred from 

asserting their claims even if they previously filed otherwise legitimate proofs of claim in the 

bankruptcy case. The imposition of these procedures is contrary to the very purpose of this 

bankruptcy case, which is to compensate victims in a timely and fair manner, and not to establish 

procedures that could rob them of their claims. In contrast to the Bar Date Motion, the TC Motion 

provides reasonable procedures for providing the Debtors with notice of the wildfire victims’ 

claims without placing an undue burden on those victims. As such, while the Interested Parties do 

not object to the setting of a bar date in the timeframe proposed by the Debtors, the Interested 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 5 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 2 

Parties object to the Debtors’ proposed Wildfire Claimant Proof of Form Claim and the Debtors’ 

proposed procedures as follows. 

First, the Bar Date Motion requires that Wildfire Claimants1 fill out an onerous Wildfire 

Claimant Proof of Claim Form that, inter alia, requires Wildfire Claimants to break down their 

claim amounts by the types of damages suffered. This form goes far beyond what is required for a 

creditor to assert a facially valid proof of claim. Proofs of claim are intended only to put the 

Debtors on notice of claims against it for purposes of establishing a bankruptcy plan. 

Second, the Bar Date Motion requires that Wildfire Claimants who have already submitted 

facially valid proofs of claim in the bankruptcy to submit the new, onerous claim form or have 

their claims forever extinguished. This requirement is contrary to black letter law, pursuant to 

which a validly filed proof of claim is prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the 

claim. 

Third, the Bar Date Motion attempts to foreclose the possibility of class proofs of claim for 

Wildfire Claimants by denying the effect that a class proof of claim would have. The Bar Date 

Motion is a procedurally improper vehicle to litigate against class proofs of claim. The issue of 

whether class proofs of claim will be allowed in this bankruptcy is not yet ripe for adjudication. 

The Court should not permit the Debtors to create additional hoops that Wildfire Claimants 

must jump through or have their claims forever barred. Accordingly, the Interested Parties request 

that this Court deny the Debtors’ attempts to impose extra-legal requirements on Wildfire 

Claimants and grant the TC Motion in its entirety. 

FACTS 

THE DEVASTATING WILDFIRES 

On November 8, 2018, the most destructive wildfire in California history (the “Camp 

Fire”) began near the town of Pulga, California, quickly spreading west and nearly erasing the 

town of Paradise, California from the map. In all, the fire destroyed nearly over 150,000 acres and 

18,000 buildings and their contents. At least eighty-five people died from the Camp Fire. 

 

1

 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall having the meaning ascribed to them in the Bar Date Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 6 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 3 

The Interested Parties are residents and businesses of Paradise who lost their homes, their 

possessions, their livelihoods, and nearly their lives in the Camp Fire. Now, over six months after 

their harrowing escape, they continue to struggle to put their lives back together. The Interested 

Parties’ stories are shared by thousands of other putative class members, and the Camp Fire 

victims form one of, if not the, largest single groups of creditors in the bankruptcy. 

It quickly became apparent to investigators that the origin of the Camp Fire was electrical 

distribution equipment owned and operated by the Debtors. The Camp Fire joined a long list of 

wildfires caused by or suspected to have been caused by the Debtors’ equipment, including the 

2015 Butte Fire and eighteen wildfires that occurred in 2017 (collectively with the Camp Fire, the 

“Northern California Wildfires”). See, e.g., ECF No. 1825 at 2; ECF No. 2019 at 2. Indeed, the 

Debtors have conceded that they “believe[] it is probable that the Utility’s equipment will be 

determined to be an ignition point of the 2018 Camp fire.” PG&E Corp., Current Report (Form 8-

k) (Feb. 28, 2019), https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/75488/000119312519055751/d 

710309d8k.htm. And on May 15, 2019, the California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection 

“determined that the Camp Fire was caused by electrical transmission lines owned and operated by 

Pacific Gas and Electricity . . . located in the Pulga area.” Press Release, CAL FIRE, CAL FIRE 

Investigators Determine Cause of the Camp Fire (May 15, 2019), http://calfire.ca.gov/communi 

cations/downloads/newsreleases/2019/CampFire_Cause.pdf. 

THE DEBTORS FILE FOR BANKRUPTCY 

On January 29, 2019 (the “Petition Date”), PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) and Pacific 

Gas & Electric Company (the “Utility,” and collectively with PG&E the “Debtors”) each 

commenced in this Court a voluntary case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and those 

case have been consolidated for procedural purposes. The bankruptcy petitions “were necessitated 

by a confluence of factors resulting from the catastrophic and tragic wildfires that occurred in 

Northern California in 2017 and 2018, and PG&E’s potential liabilities resulting therefrom.” 

Decl. of Jason P. Wells in Support of First Day Motions and Related Relief (the “Wells 

Declaration”), ECF No. 28 at 3. At the time of the filing, the Debtors estimated their total 

liability for the Wildfires at $30 billion or more. Id.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 7 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 4 

THE DEBTORS FILE A MOTION TO SET A BAR DATE 

On May 1, 2019, the Debtors filed the Bar Date Motion to set a bar date, approve proof of 

claim forms, and approve procedures to provide notice of the bar date and proof of claim forms to 

creditors. ECF No. 1784. The Bar Date Motion requests approval of “special procedures to 

facilitate the submission and evaluation of Wildfire Clams,” to include “a simpler Wildfire Claim 

Bar Date Notice and customized Proof of Claim Forms for both Wildfire Claimants and Wildfire 

Subrogation Claimants.” Id. at 10. Those “special procedures” include, inter alia, (i) the Wildfire 

Proof of Claim Form that drastically differs from Official Form 410, (ii) a requirement that 

Wildfire Claimants who have already filed otherwise valid proofs of claim must submit the 

Wildfire Proof of Claim Form or be forever barred from recovery, and (iii) a requirement that any 

Wildfire Claimant who is covered by a purported class action or class proof of claim must submit 

the Wildfire Proof of Claim Form or be forever barred from recovery. 

1. The Wildfire Proof of Claim Form 

The Bar Date Motion requires that each and every claimant who suffered losses stemming 

from any of the Northern California Wildfires must “set forth with specificity the legal and factual 

basis for the alleged claim” and file a form that “conform[s] substantially to the” Wildfire Proof of 

Claim Form. Bar Date Mot. at 14; Proposed Order at 4. The consequence for failure to timely file 

a Wildfire Proof of Claim Form is that a Wildfire Claimant is “forever barred, estopped, and 

enjoined from asserting such claims against the Debtors, their property, or their estates (or 

submitting a Proof of Claim with respect thereto” and will “not be treated as a creditor with 

respect to such claim for the purposes of voting and distribution with respect to any chapter 11 

plan.” Proposed Order at 8. These provisions, then, require that Wildfire Claimants who do not 

comply with the requirements of the Wildfire Proof of Claim Form will be forever barred from 

seeking recompense for the Northern California Wildfires. 

The Wildfire Proof of Claim Form [ECF No. 1784, Ex. C-2] requires claimants to submit a 

separate claimed amount for each potential type of loss, including for: 1) loss of residence or other 

structure; 2) personal property; 3) other property; 4) business/economic loss; 5) personal injury; 

and 6) other types of claims. The Form also requires identification of whether “all or part of the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 8 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 5 

claim is based on wrongful death,” whether the claimed losses were insured and, if so, the 

identification of the insurer, the coverage amount, and the insurance proceeds received. In 

addition, Wildfire Claimants must identify which of the twenty-three listed wildfires forms the 

basis for the claim and file a separate Form for each. Finally, the Form requires a litany of 

supporting documents including, inter alia, proof of property ownership, property appraisals, 

insurance documents, rental agreements, proof of business operation, two-years of federal tax 

returns for business losses, monthly and annual profit and loss statements or W-9 forms, death 

certificates, insurance benefit summaries, and hospital and doctor’s office records. 

2. Wildfire Claimants Must Refile Proofs of Claim 

The Bar Date Motion requires that each and every claimant who suffered losses stemming 

from any of the Northern California Wildfires file a Wildfire Proof of Claim Form regardless of 

whether that claimant “filed a lawsuit against the Debtors prior to the Petition Date” or “filed a 

Proof of Claim in the Chapter 11 Cases prior to the entry of the Proposed Order.” Bar Date Mot. 

at 14; Proposed Order at 4.2

 However, claimants other than Wildfire Claimants do not need to file 

a new proof of claim if the claimant “has already filed a Proof of Claim . . . with respect to the 

claim being asserted, utilizing a claim form that substantially conforms to” the proposed “Standard 

Proof of Claim Form or Official Form No. 410.” Id. at 7. In other words, only Wildfire Claimants 

are required to submit multiple proofs of claim in order to avoid having their claims against the 

Debtors forever extinguished. 

3. The Debtors Seek to Foreclose Class Protections 

The Bar Date Motion and Proposed Order also require that each person or entity that is a 

Wildfire Claimant to submit the Wildfire Proof of Claim Form “even if such claimant may be 

included in, or represented by, a purported class action, class suit, class Proof of Claim, or similar 

representative action.” Bar Date Mot. at 14; Proposed Order at 4. Again, just as with the other 

 

2

 “[A]ny person or entity whose claim is listed on the Schedules” and whose claim is not listed as disputed, 

contingent, or unliquidated is exempted from filing a proof of claim. Proposed Order at 6. However, even a cursory 

review of the Schedules reveals that all known wildfire claims do not qualify for this exception. See, e.g., TC Motion 

at 5. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 9 of

19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 6 

onerous requirements placed on Wildfire Claimants, the penalty for “fail[ure] to comply with this 

Order by timely filing a Proof of Claim in the appropriate form” is the permanent expungement of 

those wildfire claims.” Proposed Order at 8. 

THE TORT COMMITTEE FILES A MOTION PROPOSING ITS OWN PROOF 

OF CLAIM FORM FOR WILDFIRE CLAIMANTS 

On May 3, 2019, the Tort Committee filed the TC Motion seeking approval of its own, 

streamlined version of a claim form for Wildfire Claimants [ECF No. 1824, Ex. A] (the “TC 

Form”). The Tort Committee notes that “Official Form 410 . . . is not tailored to prepetition claims 

against the Debtors for monetary losses, personal injuries (including death), losses or averted 

damages arising out of or relating to the Fires.” TC Motion at 2. The TC Form is a simple twopage claim form that differs from Official Form 410 by eliminating irrelevant sections and 

providing spaces in which to set out information relevant to the wildfire claims. Specifically, the 

TC Form asks Wildfire Claimants to identify which of four wildfires (the numerous 2017 wildfires 

are aggregated for purposes of the TC Form) forms the basis of the claim, the location(s) of the 

injuries, the types of harm suffered, the types of damages sought, and the aggregate amount of the 

claim. TC Form at 1-2. 

The TC Motion does not seek to foreclose class proofs of claim, nor does it require that 

Wildfire Claimants who previously filed proofs of claim resubmit their claims on the TC Form. 

Rather, the TC Motion makes clear that any Wildfire Claimant who previously filed proof of claim 

“that substantially conforms to Official Form 410 is not required to file another proof of claim, or 

an amended proof of claim, using the Fire Proof of Claim Form.” TC Motion at 4. 

ARGUMENT 

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) 30013 requires that “[a] proof 

of claim shall conform substantially to the appropriate Official Form.” The official proof of claim 

form, Official Form 410 requires, inter alia, that the creditor provide the aggregate amount of the 

 

3

 “The Bankruptcy Code provides no guidance concerning what a proof of claim must contain1 and, therefore, Rule 

3001 is the definitive authority concerning the contents.” 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.01. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 10

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 7 

claim and a generalized statement laying forth “the basis of the claim,” using as examples 

“[g]oods sold, money loaned, lease, services performed, personal injury or wrongful death, or 

credit card.” Documentation is required only to the extent required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c), 

which applies only “when a claim . . . is based on a writing.” Providing the information requested 

in Official Form 410 is sufficient for any proof of claim: “[a] proof of claim executed and filed in 

accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the 

claim.” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f). 

The Bankruptcy Rules and Official Form 410 require no more because the “sole purpose of 

a proof of claim is to allow the creditor to assert a right to participate in the distribution of assets.” 

In re Deutsch-Sokol, 290 B.R. 27, 31 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). See also In re Hart Ski Mfg. Co., 5 B.R. 

326, 327–28 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1980) (noting that the purpose of a proof of claim is “to provide the 

trustee or the debtor-in-possession with adequate notice of the claim against the estate. The filing 

of a proof of claim is a ministerial act which does not alter the legal and equitable relationships 

involved.”); 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.02 (“The proof of claim provides the basis of 

creditor participation in a case” and “also provide[s] a basis for a trustee to evaluate claims and 

from objections to them”). 

Consistent with that purpose, courts in the Ninth Circuit and elsewhere have held that 

failure to conform with even the limited requirements found in the Bankruptcy Rules does not 

necessarily bar a creditor from sharing in the distributions of the debtor’s estate. For example, 

courts allow for informal proofs of claim where the creditor makes “an explicit demand showing 

the nature and amount of the claim against the estate, and evidence an intent to hold the debtor 

liable” In re Anderson-Walker Indus., Inc., 798 F.2d 1285, 1287 (9th Cir. 1986) (allowing letter 

from creditor to debtor to constitute an “amendable proof of claim”). See also In re Holm, 931 

F.2d 620, 622 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that the “document that purports to be an informal proof of 

claim need not be filed in the court”); In re Gianulias, 2013 WL 1397430, at *9 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 

Apr. 5, 2013) (discussing the “historically liberal standard” of informal proofs of claim and 

collecting cases). As another example, “[a] majority of courts hold that a failure to attach 

documents required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001 and Official Form 10 is not, by itself, a basis for 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 11

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 8 

disallowance of a claim.” In re Burkett, 329 B.R. 820, 828 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2005) (citing to In 

re Holm, 931 F.2d 620 and collecting cases from other jurisdictions). 

Creditors can also rely on class proofs of claim to protect their interests in a bankruptcy in 

the “five circuits [that] have correctly held that bankruptcy courts have discretion to apply Rule 

7023, respecting class actions, to the claims process.” 9 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY P 3001.07. 

The Ninth Circuit explicitly endorsed the availability of class proofs of claim in bankruptcy. In re 

Birting Fisheries, Inc., 92 F.3d 939, 939–40 (9th Cir. 1996). See also In re First All. Mortg. Co., 

269 B.R. 428, 444–47 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (reversing bankruptcy court’s rejection of class proofs of 

claim that “was based on its erroneous finding that class procedures were disfavored”). With class 

actions or class proofs of claim come considerable protections for creditors, including tolling of 

the date to file proofs of claim. See, e.g., In re Connaught Grp., Ltd., 491 B.R. 88, 97–98 (Bankr. 

S.D.N.Y. 2013) (holding that where “the representative files a timely adversary proceeding or 

class proof of claim” and the court later “denies a motion to certify a class,” the court “should set a 

reasonable bar date to allow the members of the putative class to file individual claims”). 

Once a creditor has submitted an individual or class proof of claim that conforms with the 

limited requirements of the Bankruptcy Rules, the creditor has done “all that is required for that 

claim to be allowed unless a party in interest objects to the proof of claim.” In re King, 165 B.R. 

296, 299 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1994). The filing creates “an evidentiary presumption that is 

rebuttable” and “operates to shift the burden of going forward but not the burden of proof.” In re 

Garvida, 347 B.R. 697, 706–07 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2006). But the proof of claim “is more than 

‘some’ evidence; it is, unless rebutted, ‘prima facie’ evidence.” Id. at 707 (citing Garner v. Shier 

(In re Garner), 246 B.R. 617, 621-22 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000)). Cf. In re Walston, 606 F. App'x 543, 

547 (11th Cir. 2015) (“when a proof of claim includes all of the information required under Rule 

3001, it constitutes prima facie evidence of the validity of the claim, regardless of whether the 

evidence on which the claimant relies would be considered inadmissible hearsay under state law”). 

A creditor who files a facially valid proof of claim is entitled to distributions in the amount 

claimed unless and until an interested party rebuts the presumption “with counter-evidence.” Id.

/ / / 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 12

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 9 

In all, the bankruptcy process provides for liberal protections for creditors to assert their 

claims against a debtor before those claims are permanently barred. As the Ninth Circuit has 

observed, “[b]ankruptcy courts are courts of equity, and must assure that substance will not give 

way to form, and that technical considerations will not prevent substantial justice from being 

done.” In re Anderson-Walker, 798 F.2d at 1287 (internal quotation marks and alterations 

omitted). Here, however, the Bar Date Motion seeks to impose extra-legal “technical 

considerations” on the Wildfire Claimants under penalty of forfeiture of the right to recovery. The 

combined effect of its various provisions will be to impose an unnecessary burden on Wildfire 

Claimants through the onerous Wildfire Proof of Claim Form, expunge otherwise valid proofs of 

claim in a blatant attempt to reverse the burden of production, and foreclose the protections 

afforded to potential class members at a premature and procedurally improper phase of the 

litigation. That the Debtors seek to impose these burdens on the very people that they victimized 

by way of causing twenty-three wildfires in Northern California is particularly egregious where 

even the Debtors have acknowledged that “[m]any of those who lost their homes in the 2017 and 

2018 Wildfires . . . continue to struggle to find affordable alternative housing” and are “still in 

need of assistance for Alternative Living Expenses or other urgent needs.” ECF No. 1777 at 10. 

These burdens are antithetical to the purpose of filing proofs of claim and the equitable nature of 

bankruptcy. 

THE DEBTORS SEEK TO IMPOSE AN UNNECESSARY BURDEN BY WAY 

OF THE WILDFIRE PROOF OF CLAIM FORM 

The Wildfire Proof of Claim Form proposed by the Debtors here requires the Wildfire 

Claimants to “set forth with specificity the legal and factual basis for the alleged claim” and file a 

form that “conform[s] substantially to the” Wildfire Proof of Claim Form. Bar Date Mot. at 14; 

Proposed Order at 4. Conforming with the proposed form includes setting forth a separate

claimed amount for each of six categories of losses and production of, inter alia, proof of property 

ownership, property appraisals, insurance documents, rental agreements, proof of business 

operation, two-years of federal tax returns for business losses, monthly and annual profit and loss 

statements or W-9 forms, death certificates, insurance benefit summaries, and hospital and 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 13

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 10 

doctor’s office records. While such a breakdown of damages and production of supporting 

documents may eventually be useful in establishing the allowed claim amount, those burdens do 

not serve the purpose of “allow[ing] the creditor to assert a right to participate in the distribution 

of assets.” In re Deutsch-Sokol, 290 B.R. at 31. Rather, that information can be requested, if 

necessary, if and when the Debtors object to a particular claim. Requiring Wildfire Claimants to 

submit to such burdens now serves no purpose but to expunge the claims of creditors who do not 

perfectly comply with the “technical considerations” that the Debtors seek to impose. 

The cases cited by the Debtors in the Bar Date Motion do not counsel for such burdens to 

be placed on the Wildfire Claimants here. Two of the cases involve sexual assault allegations 

requiring special confidentiality and filing provisions. In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Case No. 

11-20059 (SVK) (Bankr. E.D. Wisc. July 14, 2011), ECF No. 331 (requiring “Abuse Survivors” to 

fill out a special claim form that was subject to a “Confidentiality Protocol” and special filing 

requirements); In re USA Gymnastics, Case No. 18-09108 (RLM) (Bankr. S.D. Ind. Feb. 25, 

2018), ECF No. 301 (same). In addition, the sexual assaults were allegedly committed by 

individuals in the employ of the debtors, and information about the claims would have been held 

by the creditor and those individuals, not the debtors. Here, in contrast, the creditors are largely 

holders of known, contingent claims and appear on the Debtors’ schedules. See ECF Nos. 899, 

900, 905, 906. 

The other two cases involve a tailored but simple claim form that did not require the 

creditors to separately identify claimed amounts by category of damages or the production of all 

supporting documentation, as the Debtors are seeking to impose here. In re TK Holdings Inc., 

Case No. 17-11375 (Bankr. D. Del. Oct. 4, 2017), ECF No. 959 (for airbag defect claims, a twopage claim form requiring identification of the vehicle, ownership history, and amount of the 

claim); In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., Case No. 14-10979 (Bankr. D. Del. July 30, 2015), 

ECF No. 5171 (for pre-manifestation asbestos exposure claims, a one-page form requiring 

identification of the plants at which the claimant worked). These cases show that a bankruptcy 

court can tailor a proof of claim form for a particular type of claim without placing unnecessary 

and extra-legal burdens on the claimant. In fact, the TK Holdings and Energy Future Holdings

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 14

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 11 

claim forms are similar to the TC Form, which is a two-page claim form that requires claimants to 

identify the relevant wildfire, the types of damages sought, and the aggregate claim amount. That 

is all that should be required of Wildfire Claimants here. 

THE DEBTORS SEEK TO REVERSE THE BURDEN OF PRODUCTION AND 

EXPUNGE OTHERWISE VALID CLAIMS 

The Bar Date Motion and Proposed Order require that every Wildfire Claimant who has 

already submitted a valid proof of claim using Official Form 410 or its equivalent to submit the 

new Wildfire Proof of Claim Form or have their claims against the Debtors forever barred. This 

requirement has the effect of disallowing presumptively valid proofs of claim by improper means, 

and shifts the burden of production from the Debtors, where the burden should lie, to the creditors. 

But that is not the law. A correctly filed proof of claim is “prima facie evidence of the validity and 

amount of the claim,” Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(f), and “is all that is required for that claim to be 

allowed unless a party in interest objects,” In re King, 165 B.R. at 299 (emphasis added). The 

filing of a claim creates an “evidentiary presumption” that acts to “shift the burden of going 

forward” to the party challenging the claim. In re Garvida, 347 at 706-07. And the Debtors 

cannot argue that this burden shifting is a form of mass objection to already-filed proofs of claim, 

because a “proof of claim is more than ‘some’ evidence; it is, unless rebutted, ‘prima facie’ 

evidence” that must be rebutted “with counter-evidence.” Id. at 707. And when combined with 

the documentary evidence required for the Wildfire Proof of Claim Form, the Debtors appear to be 

attempting to require the Wildfire Claimants to provide “counter-evidence” to the Debtors lack of 

evidence. That is exactly backwards. 

This attempted burden-shifting has massive implications. In the normal course, a debtor 

(or any other interested party) can object to a proof of claim. The issue then becomes a contested 

matter, and the creditor has the ultimate burden of proof in establishing the right to and amount of 

payment. See, e.g., id. at 706-07. The Debtors’ attempt to shift the burden here, however, will 

result in expunged claims, some of which may not get refiled4

 or, if the Bar Date Motion is 

 

4

 Wildfire Claimants who have already submitted proofs of claim have no reason to believe that they will need to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 15

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 12 

granted, will get refiled but not in accordance with the onerous requirements of the Wildfire Proof 

of Claim Form. See supra at 11-13. Those creditors, who have already met their burden of 

production and are entitled to the protections afforded by the contested matter process, will be 

forever barred from asserting their claims against the Debtors. 

Again, the cases cited by the Debtors in support of their motion do not counsel differently. 

Three of those cases explicitly exempt creditors who have already filed a proof of claim from the 

need to file the more tailored proof of claim form. In re TK Holdings Inc., ECF No. 959; In re 

Energy Future Holdings Corp., ECF No. 5171; In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee, ECF No. 331. 

Only the USA Gymnastics court required creditors who had already filed a proof of claim to file 

the new form by the bar date, and only subject to the requirement that the debtor “gives such 

Survivor prompt notice that the Survivor must re-file the Claim.” In re USA Gymnastics, ECF No. 

301 at 9. Here, the Debtors have already conceded that the destruction caused by the Northern 

California Wildfires will make such direct notice impossible. See Bar Date Mot. at 31. 

In stark contrast to the Bar Date Motion, the TC Motion does not require Wildfire 

Claimants to refile their claims: 

Any Fire Claimant that has already filed a proof of claim with Prime Clerk against 

any of the Debtors utilizing a claim form that substantially conforms to Official 

Form No. 410 is not required to file another proof of claim, or an amended proof of 

claim, using the Fire Proof of Claim Form. 

TC Mot. at 4. The TC Motion is fully compliant with the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules, 

and case law. 

THE DEBTORS SEEK TO PREMATURELY AND IMPROPERLY 

EVISCERATE CLASS PROTECTIONS THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE 

PROTECT WILDFIRE CLAIMANTS 

The Bar Date Motion also attempts to preempt the use of class proofs of claim through the 

backdoor, rather than properly litigating the issue: 

 

refile their claims or be forever barred from recovery. The proposed notice procedures will help, but even the Debtors 

concede that they “do not have names and addresses of many potential claimants to which they would otherwise mail 

notice.” Bar Date Mot. at 31. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 16

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 13 

Any holder of a Wildfire Claim must file the applicable Wildfire Proof of Claim 

Form even if such claimant may be included in, or represented by, a purported class 

action, class suit, class Proof of Claim, or similar representative action filed against 

the Debtors with respect to such claimant’s Wildfire Claim. 

Bar Date Mot. at 14 (emphasis added); Proposed Order at 4. This provision would have 

the practical effect of barring class proofs of claim in this bankruptcy. The Bar Date Motion is not 

the proper procedural vehicle to challenge the propriety of class proofs of claim. See, e.g. In re 

First All. Mortg., 269 B.R. at 444 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (reversing bankruptcy court ruling sustaining 

objection to class proof of claim). 

Nor is the issue of allowing class proofs of claim ripe for adjudication. In the normal 

course, a creditor would file a class proof of claim and, if an interested party objects, the creditor 

would then file a motion pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9014 to apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023, 

which applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23, to the contested matter. Judge Jaroslovsky of 

the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California explained that a “motion to invoke 

[Bankruptcy Rule 7023] is timely if promptly made once an objection to the claim is raised.” In re 

Sequoia Senior Solutions, Inc., 2017 WL 2533345, at *2 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. June 9, 2017) 

(emphasis added). Until that time, any challenge to the class proof of claim procedure is not ripe. 

See id.

Furthermore, the Bar Date Motion can be construed as a clever effort to eviscerate an 

important protection for creditors – tolling of the time to file individual proofs of claim. See, e.g., 

In re Connaught Grp., 491 B.R. at 97–98 (citing Gentry v. Siegel, 668 F.3d 83, 91 (4th Cir. 2012) 

and noting that the American Pipe “tolling rule applies in bankruptcy”). If this Court later denies 

a class proof of claim, “it should set a reasonable bar date to allow the members of the putative 

class to file individual claims.” Id. at 98. That protection is particularly important here as the 

Debtors may not be able to provide the direct mail notice required for known claimants to the 

thousands of wildfire victims whose residences were burned down. See Bar Date Mot. at 31 (“the 

Debtors do not have names and addresses of many potential claimants to which they would 

otherwise mail notice”). See also ECF No. 1777 at 4-5 (the Debtors conceding that “[m]any of 

those who lost their homes in the 2017 and 2018 Wildfires . . . continue to struggle to find 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 17

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 14 

affordable housing” and may be “living in tents”). The Debtors should not be able to circumvent 

the protections afforded creditors through well-settled bankruptcy procedures through what 

ostensibly is a Bar Date Motion, but which in reality seeks to strip the Wildlife creditors of 

important protections.5

The TC Motion does not suffer from the same infirmities as the Bar Date Motion. The TC 

Motion is silent on the issue of class proofs of claim, allowing interested parties and this Court to 

address class proofs of claim at the appropriate time and through the appropriate procedures. 

CONCLUSION 

For all the above reasons, the Interested Parties request that this Court (i) strike the parts of 

the Proposed Order requiring Wildfire Claimants who have already filed a proof of claim to file a 

new proof of claim, (ii) strike the parts of the Proposed Order requiring Wildfire Claimants who 

are covered by class actions and/or class proofs of claim to file an individual proof of claim, (iii) 

deny the Wildfire Proof of Claim Form in its entirety, (iv) approve of the TC Motion in its entirety, 

and (v) grant any other relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

[Signatures to Follow] 

 

 

5

 None of Archdiocese of Milwaukee, Energy Future Holdings, or USA Gymnastics contain a similar waiver of class 

procedures. In re USA Gymnastics, ECF No. 301; In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., ECF No. 5171; In re 

Archdiocese of Milwaukee, ECF No. 331. But see In re TK Holdings Inc., ECF No. 959 (requiring each airbag 

claimant to file an individual proof of claim). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 18

of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 15 

Dated: May 28, 2019 

 Los Angeles, CA 

 /s/ Thomas D. Warren 

Thomas D. Warren 

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP 

John M. Pierce (SBN 250443) 

jpierce@piercebainbridge.com 

Thomas D. Warren (SBN 160921) 

twarren@piercebainbridge.com 

Carolynn K. Beck (SBN 264703) 

cbeck@piercebainbridge.com 

Janine Cohen (SBN 203881) 

jcohen@piercebainbridge.com 

355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

(213) 262-9333 

Deborah Renner (pro hac requested) 

drenner@piercebainbridge.com 

Claiborne Hane (pro hac requested) 

chane@piercebainbridge.com 

Michael Eggenberger (pro hac) 

meggenberger@piercebainbridge.com 

277 Park Avenue, 45th Floor 

New York, New York 10172 

(212) 484-9866 

-and- 

 /s/ Michael I. Gottfried 

Michael I. Gottfried 

LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP 

Michael Gottfried (SBN 146689) 

mgottfried@lgbfirm.com 

Roye Zur (SBN 273875) 

rzur@lgbfirm.com 

1880 Century Park East, Suite 1101 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

(310) 557-0050 

 Attorneys for Interested Parties 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2240 Filed: 05/28/19 Entered: 05/28/19 14:50:55 Page 19

of 19