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

CITY OF SAN JOSE 

HARVEY S. SCHOCHET (State Bar No. 62673) 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

505 Montgomery Street, Suite 800 

San Francisco, California 94111 

Telephone: (415) 276-6500 

Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 

Email: harveyschochet@dwt.com 

Attorney(s) for Creditor and Party-in-Interest

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION 

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY 

 Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors. 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case 

No. 19-30088 DM 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case Nos. 19-30088 DM (Lead Case) 

 19-30089 DM 

Chapter 11 

Jointly Administered 

JOINDER OF CITY OF SAN JOSE TO 

SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY’S 

LIMITED OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S BAR 

DATE MOTION [Docket No. 1784]

Date: June 11, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Courtroom: 17 

Place: 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Objection Deadline: May 31, 2019

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 1 of

32
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 

The City of San Jose (the “The City”), a claimant and party-in-interest in the abovecaptioned chapter 11 cases of Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”) and PG&E 

Corporation (“PG&E” and, together with the Utility, the “Debtors”), joins in the Limited Objection 

of the Sonoma Clean Power Authority (“SCPA”) [Docket No. 2321] to the Debtors’ Bar Date 

Motion (“Bar Date Motion”) [Docket No. 1784] (the “SCPA Objection”). The City generally shares 

the concerns identified in the SCPA Objection, as follows: 

I. JOINDER 

The City’s interest in the SCPA Objection is as a creditor and on behalf of the many 

thousands of customers that the Debtors serve in The City. 

The Bar Date Motion lacks sufficient and important clarity on the nature and scope of 

“claims” that must be filed, and can be interpreted as overly broad, covering both “Future Harm 

Claims” and “Unknown Claims.”1 The proposed process and rules for filing and content of claims is 

unnecessarily complex and puts potential creditors at an unfair disadvantage. The City agrees with 

SCPA that it is inappropriate to model the claims approach in Debtors’ case on asbestos and other 

mass tort cases that are distinguishable from the Debtors’ current circumstance. 

The City shares the following concerns identified in the SCPA Objection: (A) the Debtors 

have a fiduciary duty to provide clarity and notice regarding claim scope and process concerning 

requirements not fairly contemplated nor easily understood by potentially thousands of creditors; 

(B) the Debtors’ proposed claims process does not facilitate a fair and orderly reorganization, since it 

drives the need to file protective/defensive claims based on unknown events, such as future fires; 

(C) the Debtors’ reliance on an asbestos/mass tort model for “unmatured” or contingent claims is not 

appropriate under the circumstances of this case; (D) the Debtors fail to justify why it is necessary to 

deal with Future Harms Claims and Unknown Claims at this early stage of the case; (E) the Bar Date 

Motion would unfairly shift claim identification responsibility from the Debtors to governmental 

units and other potential creditor-victims; (F) the Bar Date Motion, whether advertently or 

inadvertently, potentially prejudices thousands of creditors, whose claims may be disallowed in 

1

 For purposes of this Joinder, the definition of “Future Harms Claims” and “Unknown Claims” are as set 

forth in SCPA’s Objection.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 2 of

32
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 

favor of equity and other inferior classes; and (G) the Bar Date Motion does not coordinate the 

timing of potential Section 365 rejection claims with the related claims process. 

The City respectfully requests that any bar date order: (A) require Debtors to provide 

adequate and sufficiently detailed notice to establish a clear and reasonable definition of claims; (B) 

prohibit Debtors from asserting bar date or other discharge or plan injunction provisions against 

Future Harm Claims and Unknown Claims; (C) establish an early deadline to resolve “force of law” 

contract rejection disputes, such as those related to CCA service agreements, as a means to address 

the application of the bar date to claims beyond section 365(g); (D) provide for liberal claim 

amendment rights, and; (E) prohibit Debtors from imposing burdensome procedural or content 

requirements for claims. 

II. CONCLUSION 

The Bar Date Motion leaves creditors like The City little choice: either file wide-ranging 

protective claims that reserve all Future Harm Claims and Unknown Claims that the creditor can 

possibly contemplate or risk later disputes with Debtors regarding objections, discharge or 

injunctions. With another fire season soon to be underway, Debtors’ infrastructure will once again 

be tested and risks associated with widespread and excessive defensive blackouts, among other 

potential risks, can also be expected. Now is not the time to allow Debtors, through the Bar Date 

Motion, to shift the risk of future harm from Debtors to Debtors’ creditors. For the reasons set forth 

herein, The City joins in the SCPA Objection and requests that the Court provide the relief requested 

by SCPA. 

DATED: May 31, 2019. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, 

DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 

By: /s/ Harvey S. Schochet

Harvey S. Schochet 

Attorneys for Creditor and Party-in-Interest, 

The City of San Jose 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 3 of

32
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 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I am employed in the County of San Francisco; my business address is 505 Montgomery 

Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, California 94111. I am over the age of eighteen years and not a 

party to the foregoing action. 

On May 31, 2019, I served the within: 

JOINDER OF CITY OF SAN JOSE TO SONOMA CLEAN POWER AUTHORITY’S 

LIMITED OBJECTION TO DEBTOR’S BAR DATE MOTION [Docket No. 1784]

 BY E-MAIL OR ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION: I caused a copy of the 

document(s) to be sent from e-mail address amandahenderson@dwt.com to the 

persons at the e-mail addresses listed in the attached Exhibit A, based on a court 

order or an agreement of the parties to accept service by email or electronic 

transmission. 

 MAIL - by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage 

thereon fully prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed 

to all parties listed on the attached Exhibit B. 

I am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for 

mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day 

with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of 

the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more 

than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is 

true and correct. Executed on May 31, 2019 at San Francisco, California. 

 _________________________________________ 

Amanda L. Henderson 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 4 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 5 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 6 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 7 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 8 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 9 of

32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 10

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 11

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 12

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 13

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 14

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 15

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 16

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 17

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 18

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 19

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 20

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 21

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 22

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 23

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 24

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 25

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 26

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 27

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 28

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 29

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 30

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 31

of 32
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2326 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 18:41:33 Page 32

of 32