1

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

SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL Electronically Filed 05/15/2019

A Professional Law Corporation

James P. Hill, SBN 90478

Christopher V. Hawkins, SBN 222961

600 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, California 92101

Tel: (619) 233-4100

Email: hill@sullivanhill.com

hawkins@sullivanhill.com

Gerald Singleton, SBN 208783

John C. Lemon, SBN 175847

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

450 A Street, 5th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: (619) 771-3473

Email: gerald@slffirm.com

john@jcl-lawoffice.com

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtors

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered)

OBJECTION BY THE SINGLETON LAW 

FIRM FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS TO 

PG&E’S EXCLUSIVITY MOTION (DOC. 

1795)

Date: May 22, 2019

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

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Hon. Dennis Montali

Opposition Deadline: May 15, 2019, 4 p.m. (PDT)

Affects:

PG&E Corporation

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

 No. 19-30088 (DM).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 1 of

7
2

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.

The SLF Fire Victim Claimants object to PG&E’s motion to extend the exclusive filing period 

because PG&E has not made good-faith efforts to resolve the victims’ claims and the purpose of 

its motion is tactical delay.

A. Introduction

The Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”), together with several other firms1, represents over 4,700 

victims of the fires started by PG&E from 2015 through 2018, including victims from all three major 

fires at issue in this bankruptcy: (1) the 2015 Butte Fire; (2) each of the 18 major fires commonly

referred to as the 2017 North Bay Fires; and (3) the 2018 Camp Fire. (Declaration of Gerald 

Singleton, “Singleton Dec.”, ¶3.) The SLF Fire Victim Claimants are thus representative of every 

fire victim in this proceeding.

On May 1, 2019, PG&E filed a motion to extend the deadline to file its Chapter 11 plan from 

May 28, 2019, and the concomitant solicitation period from July 29, 2019, to January 28, 2020. 

(Electronic Case File Document Number, “Doc #”, 1795.) Because PG&E has not made good-faith 

progress toward making these victims whole and because it has filed this motion for the purpose of 

tactical delay, the SLF Fire Victim Claimants object.

B. Because at least five of the nine factors cited by PG&E weigh heavily against granting 

the extension, PG&E cannot carry its burden and its motion should be denied.

1. PG&E must carry a heavy burden to demonstrate cause for the extension.

PG&E bears the burden of establishing “cause” to extend the current deadlines. See In re 

Dow Corning Corp., 208 B.R. 661, 663 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997). The standard of proof “is a heavy 

one” and it “gets heavier with each extension [that the debtor] seeks as well as the longer the period 

of exclusivity lasts.” Id. at 663, 664. “[A] request to extend . . . the period of exclusivity is a serious 

matter” and “such a motion should be granted neither routinely nor cavalierly.” In re All Seasons 

Indus., Inc.,121 B.R. 1002, 1004 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1990) (quotation omitted). PG&E must carry its

//

 

1

 Because SLF has different joint venture partners in each of the fire cases, the 4,700+ fire 

victims are referred to in this filing as the “SLF Fire Victim Claimants” for ease of reference.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 2 of

7
3

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

burden based upon the facts and circumstances of this case. See In re Dow Corning, 208 B.R. 661 at 

663.

2. The totality of the circumstances weighs heavily against PG&E’s requested

extension.

Courts typically look to nine factors to determine whether a movant has demonstrated cause to 

extend the period of exclusivity. See In re Dow Corning, 208 B.R. 661 at 663. Those factors are set 

out in PG&E’s motion and will not be recounted here. At least five of them, however, militate 

against granting PG&E’s extension.

Indeed, while this is obviously a big case (factors one and two), the next five factors counsel 

against an extension. The third factor – the existence of good faith progress toward reorganization –

weighs heavily against PG&E because there has been none. In fact, although the Singleton Firm 

represents over 4,700 victims, the PG&E bankruptcy attorneys have stated that they will speak only 

to counsel for the Tort Claims Committee and there has been no substantive communications with 

counsel for the SLF Fire Victim Claimants. (Singleton Dec, ¶4.) 

The next two factors – whether the debtor has demonstrated reasonable prospects for filing a 

viable plan and whether it has made progress in negotiations with its creditors – are similar in this 

context and both weigh against an extension. Again, since declaring insolvency, PG&E has refused

to communicate substantively with counsel the SLF Fire Victim Claimants and therefore has made no 

progress in negotiations. But based on communications with other lawyers in this proceeding, it 

appears that PG&E is trying to negotiate a matrix to facilitate mass settlements (akin to a class action) 

rather than settling claims on an individual basis. 

Simply put, mass settlement is not in the best interest of the fire victims. The Singleton Firm 

has settled well over one thousand fire cases – including over 700 from the Butte Fire with PG&E –

and is uniquely credentialed to appreciate that the fire victims must maintain the right to have their 

cases handled individually. Taking a one-size-fits-all approach and resolving these claims en masse

would be a windfall to PG&E at the expensive of these victims, who still deserve to be made whole –

PG&E’s elective bankruptcy notwithstanding. (Singleton Dec, ¶5.)

/ / /

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 3 of

7
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

The seventh factor – the amount of time that has elapsed – might ordinarily favor the debtor 

because this is the first request for an extension. But the fire cases have been pending for years and 

the victims, many of whom are either homeless or in temporary housing, are suffering. For example, 

the Butte Fire occurred in 2015. The Singleton Firm still represents over 700 individual victims (in 

more than 300 cases) who have been waiting since 2015 and who were on the cusp of being 

compensated for their losses when PG&E elected to declare bankruptcy. (Singleton Dec, ¶6.) 

As PG&E’s Chief Financial Officer admitted in his sworn testimony at the Creditor’s Hearing 

on April 29, even taking the worst current projections for its fire losses into account ($30 billion in 

overall damages from the three fire complexes) PG&E will still have over $6 billion more in assets 

than in liabilities.

2

 (Singleton Dec, ¶7.) Thus, while PG&E may be legally able to declare 

bankruptcy, it certainly was not forced to do so. This was a tactical move designed to try and get a 

better deal for PG&E, and a worse deal for the fire victims, the ratepayers, and the public. Id.

PG&E’s decision to run for the cover of Chapter 11 means that those victims will likely have 

to wait months – or even years – longer. This process should not be drawn out even further by 

extending the exclusivity periods until November and next January. 

The eighth and last relevant factor3 – whether the debtor is seeking an extension of exclusivity 

in order to pressure creditors to submit to the debtor’s demands – is uniquely probative here. This –

again – is an optional bankruptcy. And PG&E is leveraging its position as a massive debtor to 

influence the state government to enact legislation: (1) imposing limitations on fire liability for 

utilities; and (2) to create a bail-out fund. (Singleton Dec, ¶9.) This is both unfair to the victims 

(who must now languish while their claims are in bankruptcy court), the taxpayers (who are being 

asked to pay billions of dollars for PG&E’s malfeasance so that PG&E shareholders can continue to 

reap billions of dollars in profits and dividends) and an abuse of process. Id.

 

2 See Doc # 903 and Doc # 903-1, p. 11, lines 16-22. 

3 The ninth factor, “whether an unresolved contingency exists,” is vague and seems to have 

little application here. This is, admittedly, a big bankruptcy. There are accordingly any number of 

unresolved contingencies. This does not inform the analysis, however.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 4 of

7
5

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.

The Court should order PG&E to resume its mediation system already in place for the Butte 

Fire and implement a plan to resolve the remaining fire cases before granting any extensions of 

time.

As noted above, with respect to the Butte Fire, the parties had worked out a mediation system 

that allowed them to efficiently and fairly resolve their claims. 

While the precise amount of the remaining damages for the Butte Fire are unknown, the 

remaining damages likely will be between $100 and $150 million.

PG&E has over $5 billion in DIP financing, with the ability to borrow at least an additional $2 

billion. On March 14, PG&E filed a Summary of Assets and Liabilities listing assets of 

$61,001,948,725 and liabilities of $24,702,425,886. (Doc # 903.) In PG&E’s commentary on the 

Summary of Assets and Liabilities, it estimated that the total damages for the 2015 Butte, 2017 North 

Bay and 2018 Camp Fire likely would be in the range of $13.4 to $30 billion. (Doc # 903-1, p. 11, 

lines 16-22.) At the Creditor’s Meeting on April 29, 2019, PG&E’s CFO testified that he believed 

the lowest range of PG&E’s liability would be $14 billion, not $13.4 billion. (Singleton Dec, ¶8.) 

However, he acknowledged that, based on the information known to PG&E to date, $30 billion was 

the high-end of the PG&E’s estimates for the potential damages from these fires.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / 

/ / /

/ / 

/ / /

/ / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 5 of

7
6

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

Based on the most recent Summary of Assets and Liabilities and the recent testimony of 

PG&E’s CFO, PG&E’s internal estimates are that it has $61 billion in assets and $38.7 to $54.7 

billion in liabilities. Thus, PG&E’s assets exceed its liabilities by somewhere between $6 and $22 

billion.

Accordingly, under the worst case scenario for PG&E, it has at least $6 billion in net assets. 

There is therefore no excuse for PG&E not settling these cases immediately. 

This Court should accordingly direct PG&E to resume the resolution of Butte Fire claims 

under the existing mediation program.

With respect to the remaining fire cases, the SLF Fire Victims Claimants respectfully request 

that this Court order PG&E to do the following as a condition precedent to any extensions of time:

(1) propose a mediation system for resolving fire cases on an individual basis;

(2) identify the fires for which it will concede liability and begin resolving those 

claims (on an individual basis, according to the mediation program) 

immediately; and

(3) begin discovery on fires for which it will contest liability.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: May 15, 2019 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

By: see attached signature page 

Gerald Singleton

John C. Lemon

Dated: May 15, 2019 SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL

A Professional Law Corporation

By: /s/ Christopher V. Hawkins

James P. Hill

Christopher V. Hawkins

Attorneys for the Singleton Law Firm

Fire Victim Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 6 of

7
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2019 Filed: 05/15/19 Entered: 05/15/19 15:56:36 Page 7 of

7