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 90025-0509

Telephone: 310.820.8800

Facsimile: 310.820.8859

Email: esagerman@bakerlaw.com

Email: lattard@bakerlaw.com

Counsel to the 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)

OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

TO EX PARTE MOTION OF DEBTORS 

TO CONTINUE HEARING ON MOTIONS 

FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC 

STAY [Dkt. Nos. 2863, 2904, 3111]

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3114 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 12:11:31 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

- 1 -

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (“TCC”) in the chapter 11 cases 

(the “Chapter 11 Cases”) of PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(the “Debtors” or “PG&E”) hereby submits this objection (the “Objection”) to the Debtors’ ex 

parte motion [Dkt. No. 3111] to continue the hearing (“Motion to Continue”) on the motions of 

the TCC and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders for relief from the automatic stay 

(the “Stay Motions”) currently scheduled for July 24, 2019, and respectfully states as follows:

1. Moving parties should be entitled to control their requested hearing date, where, as here, 

the timing of the Court’s consideration of the motions may have an impact on whether 

or not the Court will grant the substantive relief sought.

2. In order to give the Stay Motions a fighting chance to be granted, the hearings should 

not be delayed by almost a month. One of the Debtors’ primary arguments is that there 

is not enough time for a state court test trial on causation of the Tubbs fire because the 

State of California has set an arbitrary deadline for the Debtors to emerge from 

bankruptcy. Putting aside for the moment the obvious due process problems with that 

argument, the Debtors’ position is not factually correct. The Stay Motions provide the 

speediest path to resolution.

3. The individual moving parties took great pains to carefully put forward plaintiffs, at 

least one of whom indisputably will qualify for California’s 120-day trial setting 

preference when the state court considers the trial setting application—which it will do 

on shortened time in view of the enormous significance of the Tubbs causation issue to 

victims and to California generally. Movants don’t intend to request multiple trials, as 

Debtors suggest, but only one—a single test case for determination of whether the 

Debtors’ equipment was a cause of the ignition of the Tubbs fire.

4. If the trial date is set by August 2019, trial is required by statute to start in December 

2019. Moving parties submit that the process they request is a more speedy procedure 

than can be accommodated by trial the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California, the other alternative for trial of personal injury tort and wrongful 

death claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(5). Moreover, whether the Court decides 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3114 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 12:11:31 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

- 2 -

to lift the stay as requested, or to withdraw the reference, the decision must be heard at 

the earliest opportunity and no legitimate purpose is served by delay of the hearing.

5. Finally, Debtors’ argument that the Stay Motions should be heard at the same time as 

their motion to estimate procedures for fire claims [ECF 3091] (“Estimation Motion”), 

set for hearing on August 14, 2019, because the two forms of relief are alternatives to 

each other is a red herring. The Debtors assert in support of their dubious comparison 

that the scope of 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(5) to the wildfire claims in these Cases is actually 

quite small because there weren’t so many wrongful deaths, and these minor details can 

be addressed outside their master estimation procedures. 

6. Debtors then claim that the horrific emotional distress and PTSD suffered by tens of 

thousands of victims aren’t really “personal injury torts” under 28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(B) 

because the injuries are merely “incident” to the victims’ loss of properties. The 

Debtors’ argument is flatly legally wrong, as will be demonstrated when the issues are 

fully briefed in the appropriate context. (What is more troubling, though, is the fact that 

the Debtors actually argue that a victim running for his or her life in the middle of the 

night while seeing a towering wall of flames over their shoulder, or having to jump in a 

swimming pool to escape the fire that is consuming their home, or hearing the screams 

of trapped animals being burned to death, or driving with their children over downed 

live power wires to escape their burning home, or the continuing PTSD of a child who 

still wakes in the night with nightmares of encroaching flames, or the trauma of losing 

their entire neighborhood or entire town—is nothing more than an asterisk incident to 

losing their property. The fact that the Debtors directed their professionals to make this 

legal argument is another stain on their already tarnished reputations.)

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3114 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 12:11:31 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

- 3 -

Since no valid purpose will be served by granting the Motion to Continue, and the 

substantive rights of moving parties may be prejudiced by doing so, the Motion to Continue must 

be denied.

Dated: July 20, 2019 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP

By: /s/

Robert A. Julian

Counsel for Official Committee of Tort Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3114 Filed: 07/21/19 Entered: 07/21/19 12:11:31 Page 4 of

4