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) 

RESPONSE OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

TO THE OBJECTIONS OF THE 

CALIFORNIA STATE AGENCIES AND 

THE SONOMA CLEAN POWER 

AUTHORITY TO THE DEBTORS’ BAR 

DATE MOTION (Dkt. Nos. 1784, 2307, 

2321) 

Date: June 26, 2019 

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

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16 Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2621 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:20:18 Page 1 of

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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

1 

 The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (“TCC”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 

cases of PG&E Corp. and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (collectively, the “Debtors” or 

“PG&E”), files this response (“Response”) to the following objections (together, the 

“Objections”) to the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion (Dkt. No. 1784) (“Debtors’ Bar Date Motion” 

or “Motion”): (1) the Limited Objection of the California State Agencies to the Debtors’ Bar 

Date Motion (Dkt. No. 2307) (“California AG Objection”); and (2) Sonoma Clean Power 

Authority’s Limited Objection to the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion (Dkt. No. 2321) (“SCPA 

Objection”). In support of this Response, the TCC respectfully states as follows. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

 On May 1, 2019, the Debtors filed their Motion, which proposed model claim forms, 

notice procedures and a bar date of September 16, 2019. Motion at 2. 

 On May 4, the TCC filed its motion to approve its model Fire Proof of Claim Form and 

accompanying memorandum in support (Dkt. Nos. 1824, 1825) (together, the “TCC Claim Form 

Motion”).1 

 On May 31, 2019, the TCC filed its objection to the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion (Dkt. No. 

2306). 

 That same day, the TCC filed a motion to approve notice procedures and a bar date and 

accompanying memorandum in support (Dkt. Nos. 2296, 2297) (together, the “TCC Bar Date 

Motion”). The TCC proposes a Fire Claims Bar Date of January 31, 2020. 

 Also on May 31, 2019, the California AG and SCPA filed Objections to the Debtors’ Bar 

Date Motion. This Response addresses the arguments raised in those Objections. 

 The Debtors have adopted the TCC’s model Fire Proof of Claim Form, and thus 

objections to the Debtors’ proof of claim form are moot. However, for completeness, the TCC 

still responds to these objections. 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 

 In the Objections, the SCPA and the California AG argue that the Debtors’ Bar Date 

Motion, if granted, could prevent victims of future fires from filing claims in these Chapter 11 

 

1

 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the TCC Claim Form Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2621 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:20:18 Page 2 of

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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

2 

Cases. The TCC is filing this Response to show that the Court does not need to make a 

preliminary determination now on how to treat future fire claims because whether a future claim 

is a claim that could have been filed before the bar date as a pre-petition claim turns on the 

allegations in the claim itself and the nature of the claim is not known at this time. Moreover, the 

TCC’s proposal of a January 31, 2020 bar date has many advantages – including the fact that it 

solves the problem raised here in the Objections: By January 31, 2020, we will know the details 

of any 2019 fires and the nature of any claim that arises therefrom, as to whether or not the claim 

is a pre-petition claim that could be filed before the bar date. 

ARGUMENT 

A. Fire Claims Only Include Prepetition Wildfires 

 The Debtors’ Motion and the Objections raise two issues. The first issue is whether the 

Debtors’ wildfire claim form or bar date or the TCC’s Fire Claim Bar Date require a claimant to 

file a Fire Claim based on a fire occurring after the Debtors filed these Chapter 11 Cases. The 

Debtors have adoped the TCC’s claim form and hence, the issue of whether the Debtors’ wildfire 

claim form is objectionable is now moot. 

 The SCPA argues that the Debtors’ Bar Date Motion would bar claims arising from future 

fires because the Motion references “unmatured” claims, and, according to the SCPA, goes 

beyond the definition of “claim” in the Bankruptcy Code. See SCPA Objection at 6-13; see also 

California AG Objection at 3. The TCC’s Fire Proof of Claim Form and Fire Claim Bar Date 

Notice define a Fire Claim as a claim arising from the prepetition fires, so the TCC’s claim form 

is not subject to the Objections. TCC Claim Form Memorandum (Dkt. No. 1825) at 2. In 

addition, the TCC’s Proof of Claim Form does not include the requirements for the burdensome 

information request by the Debtors in the model proof of claim form that the Debtors once 

proposed, and have now abandoned in favor of the TCC’s claim form. Thus, nothing about the 

TCC’s Fire Proof of Claim Form implicates the issue raised in the Objections. 

B. Adjudication of Future Fire Claims is Improper at This Time 

 The second issue is whether a claim that arises from a fire after the chapter 11 filing, but 

prior to the TCC’s January 2020 Fire Claim Bar Date, should be filed by Fire Claimants using an 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2621 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:20:18 Page 3 of

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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

3 

amended Fire Proof of Claim Form that applies to such fire claims in this case. The Court should 

not answer that question now, as the fire has not occurred and the claim has not arisen, the 

potential claim is speculative and hence the issue is not justiciable. Subject to that position, the 

TCC generally outlines its views on this question below.

 The test for whether a claim is a prepetition claim that should be filed before a claims bar 

date, or a postpetition “future claim” that is not covered by the claims bar date, is the “fair 

contemplation” test, that is whether the claimant fairly contemplated that he or she held such a 

claim that the claimant could file before the bar date. Zilog Inc. v. Rose Marie Corning (In re 

Zilog, Inc.), 450 F.3d 996, 1000-01 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that employees who were only aware 

of sex discrimination postpetition could not fairly contemplate their claim if they were not aware 

of the claim); Cal Dep’t of Health Services v. Jensen (In re Jensen), 995 F.2d 925, 927-28 (9th 

Cir. 1993) (holding that the state had sufficient prepetition knowledge of debtors’ potential 

liabilities for cleanup costs and thus their claim was a prepetition claim).

 In one of the leading cases that adopts the “fair contemplation” test, Fogel v. Zell, the 

Seventh Circuit explained the test arises from the fundamental principle that the claimant must 

have “fair notice,” “appropriate in the circumstances,” that the claimant has a claim that he or she 

must file, in order to protect the claimant from having a “legal right extinguished” if he “fails to 

respond to a pleading,” such as a bar date notice. 221 F.3d 955, 962 (7th Cir. 2000). The Seventh 

Circuit explained that the fair contemplation test arises under the “fair notice” standard of 

Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306 (1950), in which the Supreme Court 

held the standard is a due process right to notice under the Fourteenth Amendment. 221 F.3d at 

962.

 A claim that arises from an October 2019 fire, before the January 31, 2020 bar date, could 

be held to be a prepetition claim, depending on the allegations of the claim as to whether the 

claimant had such fair notice of the claim at the appropriate time. In that situation, the claimant 

could file a claim in these Chapter 11 Cases, before the January 2020 bar date, consistent with the 

fairness and due process constitutional underpinnings of the fair contemplation test. However, it 

is speculation as what type of claim could arise in this case before the bar date. Such a claim is 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2621 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:20:18 Page 4 of

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

BAKER 

&

HOSTETLER LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

4 

not justiciable at this time. And hence, there is no legal issue or claim that should prompt this 

Court to rule on such a hypothetical under well settled rules of justiciability. Notwithstanding 

that fact, the potential of a wildfire in the Fall of 2019 is another reason why the Court should 

adopt a January 2020 bar date and not a September 2019 bar date that the Debtors have suggested. 

In short, a January 2020 bar date for fire claims gives the parties and the Court time to evaluate 

what may occur this Fall.

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated in this Response, the TCC renews its request that the Court deny the 

Debtors’ Bar Date Motion, and without ruling on the premature issue regarding claims for future 

fires raised in the Objections. 

Dated: June 19, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 

By: /s/ Robert A. Julian 

Robert A. Julian 

Counsel for The Official Committee of Tort 

Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2621 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 12:20:18 Page 5 of

5