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

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Peter J. Benvenutti (#60566) 

(pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors

and Debtors in Possession

CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

Paul H. Zumbro (pro hac vice) 

(pzumbro@cravath.com) 

Kevin J. Orsini (pro hac vice) 

(korsini@cravath.com) 

Omid H. Nasab (pro hac vice) 

(onasab@cravath.com) 

825 Eighth Avenue 

New York, NY 10019

Tel: 212 474 1000 

Fax: 212 474 3700 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION 

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case No. 19 - 30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

EX PARTE MOTION OF DEBTORS FOR 

ORDER CONTINUING THE HEARING ON 

THE MOTIONS OF THE OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS AND 

THE AD HOC GROUP OF SUBROGATION 

CLAIM HOLDERS FOR RELIEF FROM 

AUTOMATIC STAY 

Related Documents: Dkt. 2863, 2904 

[No hearing requested] 

 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: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 1 of

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

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, as debtors and debtors in 

possession (collectively, “PG&E” or the “Debtors”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases, hereby 

submit this motion, pursuant to sections 105(a) of title 11, United States Code (the “Bankruptcy 

Code”), Rule 9006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) and Rule 

9006-1 of the Bankruptcy Local Rules for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District 

of California (the “Local Rules”) for entry of an order continuing the hearing date of the Official 

Committee of Tort Claimants’ (“Tort Claimants Committee” or “TCC”) Amended Motion for Relief 

from the Automatic Stay to Permit a State Court Jury Trial of the 2017 Tubbs Wildfire Claims [Docket 

No. 2904] and the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claim Holders’ (“Ad Hoc Subrogation Group”) 

Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay [Dkt. No. 2863] (collectively, the “Stay Relief Motions”), 

so that those motions may be heard together with the Debtors’ Motion for the Establishment of Wildfire 

Claims Estimation Procedures [Dkt. No. 3091] (the “Estimation Motion”) on August 14, 2019, or 

on such other date as the Court may schedule. 

In support of the Motion, the Debtors respectfully submit the Declaration of Kevin J. 

Orsini (the “Orsini Declaration”), filed contemporaneously herewith. 

I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

This Court has jurisdiction to consider this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 157 and 

1334 and the Order Referring Bankruptcy Cases and Proceedings to Bankruptcy Judges, General 

Order 24 (N.D. Cal.). This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper 

before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1408 and 1409. 

II. BACKGROUND 

The Tubbs Fire was the largest and most destructive of the 2017 North Bay Wildfires. 

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“CAL FIRE”), the Tubbs 

Fire burned 36,807 acres in both Napa and Sonoma Counties, destroyed 5,636 structures, damaged an 

additional 317 structures, and resulted in 22 fatalities.1 The Tubbs Fire accounts for the largest number 

of potential claims against the Debtors stemming from the North Bay Fires, including the majority of 

 

1 See CAL FIRE Report, dated January 20, 2019, https://www.fire.ca.gov/programs/fire-protection/reports/incidentreporting-collection/. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 2 of

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

structures destroyed and/or damaged in those fires. Notably, two separate investigatory teams from 

CAL FIRE have ruled out PG&E equipment as a cause of the Tubbs Fire.2 Nevertheless, wildfire 

claimants continue to assert that PG&E is responsible for starting the Tubbs Fire, and the TCC 

estimates that claims arising from the Tubbs Fire alone may be valued at as much as $18 billion. All 

parties agree that the Debtors’ liability (if any) for the Tubbs fire is a threshold issue that is critical to 

the resolution of these chapter 11 cases. 

The parties have now presented competing proposals for how to address that issue. On 

July 2, 2019, the TCC filed its Stay Relief Motion [Docket No. 2842], seeking to permit eight specific 

Tubbs plaintiffs to proceed to a jury trial in California Superior Court on their property damage and 

related personal injury claims. On July 9, 2019, the TCC amended its Stay Relief Motion to add five 

additional plaintiffs. [Dkt. No. 2904] On July 3, 2019, the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group filed its own 

Stay Relief Motion [Dkt. No. 2863], similarly requesting leave to proceed to trial in state court on 

claims arising out of the Tubbs Fire. A hearing on the Stay Relief Motions has been set for July 24, 

2019 [Dkt. Nos. 2851, 2865]. 

On July 18, 2019, the Debtors filed their Estimation Motion [Dkt. No. 3091], a key 

aspect of which is a proposed evidentiary hearing to be held in this Court—not in state court—to 

estimate the likelihood of success of claims arising out of the Tubbs Fire. A hearing on the Debtors’ 

Estimation Motion has been set for August 14, 2019. 

III. RELIEF REQUESTED 

The Estimation Motion and the Stay Relief Motions present competing views on how 

and where to address the likelihood of success of claims related to the 2017 Tubbs Fire, which all 

parties agree is a threshold issue that is central to the resolution of these cases and the Debtors’ ability 

to emerge from chapter 11. The TCC and the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group have requested that this 

Court lift the automatic stay and allow 13 individual claims to be tried before a jury to reach a verdict 

on both causation and damages. The Debtors, on the other hand, believe that the proper and most 

expeditious forum for addressing the value of the thousands of claims related to the Tubbs Fire is this 

 

2 See CAL FIRE Report, dated January 20, 2019, 

https://calfire.app.box.com/s/tpml34qwpy7inbr096fxfglg7broqep4/file/449219240904. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 3 of

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

Court, in which all Wildfire Claimants and other interested parties can be heard and the Court can 

assess the Debtors’ liability for the Tubbs Fire (if any) across all associated claims. The Debtors 

believe that the parties’ competing proposals should be considered together, and accordingly the 

Debtors request that the Court continue the hearing on the Stay Relief Motions filed by the TCC and 

the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group so that those motions may be heard on the same date as the Debtors’ 

Estimation Motion, which is currently set for hearing on August 14, 2019. 

Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a court “may issue any order, 

process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of the Bankruptcy 

Code”. 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). See Scholl v. Felmont Oil Corp., 327 F. 2d 697, 700 (6th Cir. 1964) (“The 

granting or denial of a continuance is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge and will not be 

reversed on appeal unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.”). In addition, pursuant to Local 

Rule 9006-1, the Court may “enlarge or shorten time to perform any act”. The Court has broad 

discretion to manage its own calendar as to matters pending before it. 

The central issues raised in the TCC’s and Ad Hoc Subrogation Group’s Stay Relief 

Motions are also at the heart of the Debtors’ Estimation Motion. In order to address the TCC’s and 

Ad Hoc Subrogation Group’s Stay Relief Motions, this Court will inevitably have to analyze and 

decide the best forum in which to address this issue. Indeed, the extent to which the issues presented 

in these motions overlap is evidenced by the fact that the TCC devotes almost ten pages of its Stay 

Relief Motion to a rebuttal of an anticipated estimation motion from the Debtors (which has since been 

filed). (See TCC Stay Relief Motion at 9-18.) The Court should weigh these competing proposals 

together, with the benefit of full briefing on both sets of motions. 

The TCC and the Ad Hoc Subrogation Group oppose adjournment. The Ad Hoc 

Subrogation Group did not provide a reason. The TCC argues that adjournment is inappropriate 

because it claims that issues in the Stay Relief Motions overlap with issues the TCC has raised in 

response to the Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Senior Noteholders to Terminate the Debtors’ 

Exclusive Periods Pursuant to Section 1121(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code [Dkt. 2741] (the 

“Exclusivity Motion”), which is also set to be heard on July 24. (See Orsini Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) That 

is not compelling. The TCC seems to make this argument premised on the fact that the term sheet 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 4 of

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

proposed by the Ad Hoc Noteholders Committee includes references to an estimation motion. While 

that may be true, the Ad Hoc Noteholders Committee has not filed a motion to estimate, and the 

questions of how, whether and when to conduct an estimation hearing—let alone where a hearing on 

the Tubbs Fire should be held—are not issues that this Court needs to address in determining whether 

to terminate the Debtors’ exclusivity. By contrast, the Debtors’ Estimation Motion is entirely about 

estimation, and it is largely about the Tubbs Fire issue. So, while the TCC is correct that its Stay 

Relief Motion overlaps with estimation issues, that is hardly a reason to insist it be heard with a motion 

to terminate exclusivity as opposed to a motion for estimation. 

Deciding the TCC’s and Ad Hoc Subrogation Group’s Stay Relief Motions separate 

and apart from the Debtors’ Estimation Motion would be inefficient and prejudicial to Debtors’ ability 

to emerge from chapter 11 prior to the June 30, 2020, legislative deadline. Accordingly, Debtors 

request that this Court grant this Motion to Continue. 

IV. NOTICE 

Notice of this Motion will be provided to (i) the Office of the United States Trustee for 

Region 17 (Attn: Andrew Vara, Esq. and Timothy Laffredi, Esq.); (ii) counsel to the Creditors 

Committee; (iii) counsel to the TCC; (iv) counsel to the Ad Hoc Group of Subrogation Claims Holders 

(v) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (vi) the Internal Revenue Service; (vii) the Office of the 

California Attorney General; (viii) the California Public Utilities Commission; (ix) the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission; (x) the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; (xi) the Office of the United 

States Attorney for the Northern District of California; (xii) counsel for the agent under the Debtors’ 

debtor in possession financing facility; and (xiii) those persons who have formally appeared in these 

Chapter 11 Cases and requested service pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002. The Debtors respectfully 

submit that no further notice is required. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 5 of

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

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated herein, the Debtors respectfully request that the Court continue 

the hearing of the TCC’s and Ad Hoc Subrogation Group’s Stay Relief Motions [Dkt. Nos. 2863, 

2904] to be heard together with the Debtors’ Estimation Motion [Dkt. No. 3091] on August 14, 2019, 

or on such other date as the Court may select. 

Dated: July 19, 2019 

 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

 CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP 

 KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP

/s/ Kevin J. Orsini

 Kevin J. Orsini 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3111 Filed: 07/19/19 Entered: 07/19/19 18:38:48 Page 6 of

6