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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

Robert A. Julian (SBN 88469) 

Cecily A. Dumas (SBN 111449) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

1160 Battery Street, Suite 100 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 628.208.6434 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: rjulian@bakerlaw.com 

Email: cdumas@bakerlaw.com 

Eric E. Sagerman (SBN 155496) 

Lauren T. Attard (SBN 320898) 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

11601 Wilshire Boulevard 

Suite 1400 

Los Angeles, CA 90025 

Telephone: 310.820.8800 

Facsimile: 310.820.8859 

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com 

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com 

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants 

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) 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF 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 (DKT. NO. 1824) 

Date: June 26, 2019 

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

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2604 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 09:27:31 Page 1 of

4
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2 

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”), for its Reply in support of its 

Motion for Entry of an Order Approving Proposed Model Proof of Claim Form for Fire Claims and 

Related Procedures (Dkt. No. 1824) (the “Claim Form Motion”),1 states as follows: 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Both PG&E and the U.S. Trustee have agreed to the TCC’s Fire Proof of Claim Form. 

PG&E made its concession after the TCC challenged PG&E’s argument that it needs to obtain 

documents and information from victims through the proof of claim form to estimate tort claims. 

The U.S. Trustee has consistently favored the TCC’s form over PG&E’s form and agreed 

to support the Claim Form Motion after proposing certain changes to the TCC’s claim form and 

related proposed order on the TCC’s bar date motion (Dkt. No. 2297) (the “TCC Bar Date 

Motion”). See Dkt. No. 2316 at 3 fn. 4. The TCC also made changes to the Fire Proof of Claim 

Form to address comments received from multiple plaintiffs’ attorneys to make the form easier for 

families to use, which comments are reflected in the revised Fire Proof of Claim Form and revised 

proposed order on the TCC Bar Date Motion (the “Proposed Order”) filed contemporaneously 

herewith. The TCC submits that the Court should adopt the TCC’s Fire Proof of Claim Form. 

II. BACKGROUND 

The Claim Form Motion filed on May 3, 2019 seeks approval of the TCC’s Fire Proof of 

Claim Form and limited procedures related thereto. The TCC designed its form to reflect the fact 

that many victims of the 2018 Camp Fire are homeless and suffering trauma, and are unrepresented 

by counsel. By its Claim Form Motion, the TCC did not ask the Court to establish a bar date, 

approve the form of notice thereof, or approve a notice program. These matters are before the 

Court on separate motions—the TCC Bar Date Motion and a motion filed by PG&E (Dkt. No. 

1784) (the “PG&E Bar Date Motion”). 

PG&E initially objected to the Claim Form Motion. See Dkt. No. 2296 (the “PG&E 

Objection”). Another party—the Singleton Law Firm Fire Victim Claimants (“Singleton” or 

the “SLF Claimants”)—filed an objection to the PG&E Bar Date Motion and the Claim Form 

 

1

 Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Reply have the meanings given to them in the Claim Form Motion and 

the Memorandum in Support thereof (Dkt. No. 1825). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2604 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 09:27:31 Page 2 of

4
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

3 

Motion. See Dkt. No. 2248 (the “Singleton Objection”). Singleton argues that PG&E’s form is 

unduly burdensome and that the TCC’s form should be adopted but in a modified form. The 

Creditors Committee filed a statement supporting PG&E’s form but did not object to the TCC’s 

Claim Form Motion. See Dkt. No. 2308 (the “UCC’s Statement”). 

After the TCC filed its objection to the PG&E Bar Date Motion (Dkt. No. 2306) 

(the “TCC’s Objection”) and served PG&E with discovery requests on PG&E’s estimates of its 

liabilities for various Fires, as reflected in PG&E’s SEC filings, PG&E notified the TCC that it has 

adopted the TCC’s Fire Proof of Claim Form. See Orsini Letter, Dkt. No. 2562-1.2 Such adoption 

moots the PG&E Objection to the Claim Form Motion and the UCC’s Statement in support of 

PG&E’s form. 

The TCC has addressed all concerns raised by the U.S. Trustee with respect to the TCC’s 

Fire Proof of Claim Form, the Proposed Order on the TCC Bar Date Motion, and the application to 

retain the Angeion Group, LLC as noticing agent (Dkt. No. 2303) (the “Angeion Application”). 

The TCC has also revised the Proposed Order on the TCC Bar Date Motion to reflect comments 

received from the California State Agencies. The TCC has also revised the Fire Proof of Claim 

Form to address comments received from multiple plaintiffs’ attorneys, including changes to clarify 

that families may use a single form so long as each family member asserting a claim is identified. 

With the changes to the Fire Proof of Claim Form and the Proposed Order, the TCC has 

been able to resolve all objections to the Court’s approval of the Fire Proof of Claim Form with one 

lone exception—the Singleton Objection. 

III. THE SINGLETON OBJECTION 

The Singleton Objection raises three issues with the TCC’s form. First, the SLF Claimants 

request that the TCC’s form be modified to permit multiple Fire Claimants whose claims stem from 

the same real property (e.g., a family of four who lost their home) to submit a single claim form 

 

2

 The TCC responded to the Orsini Letter on June 13, 2019. See Goodman Letter (attached as Exhibit A). PG&E did 

not disclose the Goodman Letter to the Court in its Status Update filed on June 17, 2019. To date, PG&E has declined 

the TCC’s invitations to enter into an information-sharing protocol. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2604 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 09:27:31 Page 3 of

4
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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

4 

rather than multiple claim forms. The TCC addressed this issue with the addition of language 

clarifying that families may use a single claim form. 

Second, the SLF Claimants request that Fire Claimants specify whether they were victims 

of the “Tubbs Fire” that occurred in 2017. The TCC’s form requires Fire Claimants to identify the 

year of the fire giving rise to the Fire Claim and provide the location of loss. This information can 

be used to identify each Fire Claim arising out of the Tubbs Fire. 

Lastly, the SLF Claimants request that the TCC’s form be modified so that Fire Claimants 

are asked to provide a claim amount. Many Fire Claimants will assert claims that include damages 

for personal injury and emotional distress. Expert testimony will be used to determine damages for 

property losses. It serves no useful purpose to ask Fire Claimants to guess at the total amount of 

their Fire Claims as a condition to filing a proof of claim. However, the Proposed Order makes it 

clear that Fire Claimants are not required to use the Fire Proof of Claim Form but can also use 

Official Form 410. The SLF Claimants, each of whom is represented by legal counsel, can 

immediately file proofs of claim asserting claim amounts using Official Form 410. 

After PG&E notified the TCC of its adoption of the TCC’s form, the TCC sought 

clarification on several issues related to the proposed bar date and the TCC’s notice program. These 

issues are not before the Court on the Claim Form Motion, which would be unopposed but for the 

Singleton Objection. Given the changes made to the Fire Proof of Claim Form, and the SLF 

Claimants’ ability to use Official Form 410, the TCC respectfully submits that the Singleton 

Objection should be overruled and that the Court should grant the Claim Form Motion. 

Dated June 19, 2019 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/ Eric Goodman 

Attorney for The Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2604 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 09:27:31 Page 4 of

4