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

KELLER BENVENUTTI KIM LLP 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kbkllp.com) 

David A. Taylor (#247433) 

(dtaylor@kbkllp.com) 

Dara L. Silveira (#274923) 

(dsilveira@kbkllp.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors and Reorganized Debtors 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Bankruptcy Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

DECLARATION OF RENEE RECORDS IN 

SUPPORT OF REORGANIZED DEBTORS’ 

ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH OMNIBUS 

OBJECTION TO CLAIMS (NO LIABILITY 

CLAIMS) 

Response Deadline: 

May 10, 2023, 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Hearing Information If Timely Response Made: 

Date: May 24, 2023 

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: (Tele/Videoconference Appearances Only) 

 United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

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). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13671 Filed: 04/14/23 Entered: 04/14/23 09:24:46 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

I, Renee Records, pursuant to section 1746 of title 28 of the United States Code, hereby declare 

under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, 

and belief: 

1. I am the Claims Manager at Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility” or “PG&E,”

and, with PG&E Corporation, the “Debtors,” or, as reorganized pursuant to the Plan, the “Reorganized 

Debtors”) in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). I submit this Declaration 

in support of the Reorganized Debtors’ One Hundred Twentieth Omnibus Objection to Claims (No 

Liability Claims) (the “Omnibus Objection”),1 filed contemporaneously herewith. 

2. As part of my job duties, I manage, administer, and monitor third-party claims,

investigations, and incidents for final determination of property damage, bodily injury, and business 

interruption. I oversee department caseload to ensure integrity and regulatory compliance. I develop 

and present key analysis and reporting to enterprise officers, operations managers, and clients regarding 

third-party incidents. 

3. Except as otherwise indicated herein, all facts set forth in this Declaration are based upon

my personal knowledge, the knowledge of other PG&E personnel working under and alongside me on 

this matter, my discussions with the Reorganized Debtors’ various other advisors and counsel, and my 

review of relevant documents and information. If called upon to testify, I would testify competently to 

the facts set forth in this Declaration. I am authorized to submit this declaration on behalf of the 

Reorganized Debtors. 

4. The No Liability Claims are identified in the columns headed “Claims To Be Disallowed

and Expunged” on Exhibit 1 annexed to the Omnibus Objection. Exhibit 1 was prepared by the 

AlixPartners, LLP (“AlixPartners”) team charged with the Bankruptcy Case Management component 

of AlixPartners’ assignment to assist the Reorganized Debtors from information provided by me, and I 

have reviewed them to confirm their accuracy. I am familiar with Exhibit 1, its contents, and the process 

under which it was prepared. 

1

 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to such terms in 

the Omnibus Objection. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13671 Filed: 04/14/23 Entered: 04/14/23 09:24:46 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

5. The No Liability Claims are identified on Exhibit 1, in the columns headed “Claims To 

Be Disallowed and Expunged.” Exhibit 1 also specifically identifies in the “Basis for Objection” that 

the No Liability Claims are classified as one or more of the following: 

a. Barred by Statute of Limitations. These Proofs of Claim fail to state a legal basis 

for recovery against the Reorganized Debtors because the underlying causes of action are barred by the 

applicable statute of limitations (the “Barred by Statute of Limitations Claims”). All of the Barred by 

Statute of Limitations Claims are governed by California law. Pursuant to section 350 of the California 

Code of Civil Procedure, an action is commenced when a complaint is filed. An action for injury to real 

or personal property must be commenced within three years, Cal. Code Civ. P. § 338(b)-(c), and actions 

for personal injury and wrongful death, respectively, must be commenced within two years. Id. at 

§§ 335.1 and 377.60. An action for relief on the ground of fraud has a three-year statute of limitations. 

Id. at § 338(d). Finally, any action upon a liability created by statute also must be brought within three 

years. Id. at § 338(a). 

The Barred by Statute of Limitations Claims seek damages for injury to property or person,2

fraud, or statutory violations.3 However, in all cases the dates of the incidents alleged were more than 

three years before the Petition Date. Claimants did not commence any actions within the limitations 

period. Accordingly, under the applicable California statutes of limitations, the Claimants’ right to 

2

 The other categories of damages (e.g. business loss, agricultural loss, economic and noneconomic 

damages) indicated on the Fire Victim Proof of Claim Form are all derivative of property damage 

and/or personal injury and are subject to the same statutes of limitations. 

3

 Claim No. 72390, filed by Synergy Project Management, Inc., seeks damages arising from alleged 

fraud and statutory violations by PG&E relating to 2015 gas strikes in the course of excavation and 

utilities work in San Francisco. Under either theory, the statute of limitations ran in 2018. Synergy 

argues that its claim is not time-barred because the cause of action did not accrue until Synergy 

discovered the alleged fraud in December 2018. However, to invoke this discovery rule, a plaintiff 

must plead facts showing “(1) the time and manner of discovery and (2) the inability to have made 

earlier discovery despite reasonable diligence.” Hopkins v. Dow Corning Corp., 33 F.3d 1116, 1120 

(9th Cir. 1994). In other words, plaintiff must affirmatively excuse its failure to discover the fraud 

within three years by showing that it had not been negligent in failing to make the discovery sooner nor 

had it had actual or presumptive knowledge of facts sufficient to put it on inquiry. Bedolla v. Logan & 

Frazer 52 Cal. App. 3d 118, 129 (1975). Synergy fails to satisfy this requirement because it does not 

make any showing, let alone a credible one, excusing its delay.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13671 Filed: 04/14/23 Entered: 04/14/23 09:24:46 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

bring each of the Barred by Statute of Limitations Claims against the Reorganized Debtors expired 

prior to the Petition Date. Therefore, the Reorganized Debtors are not liable for the Barred by Statute 

of Limitations Claims, and they should be disallowed and expunged. 

b. Amended and Superseded. The Reorganized Debtors seek to disallow and 

expunge Claim No. 59027 (the Amended and Superseded Claim”), filed on October 17, 2019 by 

Manuel Cord Jiminez-Padgett. Claim No. 106627 (the “Surviving Claim”), also filed by Mr. JiminezPadgett on October 29, 2020 in the same amount, states on its face that it amends the Amended and 

Superseded Claim. Accordingly, the Reorganized Debtors are not liable for the Amended and 

Superseded Claim. The Objection does not affect the Surviving Claim, which was settled on March 24, 

2021. 

c. Rule 2. Pacific Gas and Electric Company Tariff Electric Rule 2 (“Rule 2”) sets 

forth the general contours of the voltage provided to consumers. Rule 2(E) states that customers are 

responsible for furnishing, installing, inspecting, and keeping in good and safe condition, at their own 

risk and expense, all protective devices required to protect customers’ property. Rule 2(E) further 

provides that “PG&E shall not be responsible for any loss or damage occasioned or caused by the 

negligence, or wrongful act of the applicant or of any of his agents, employees or licensees in omitting, 

installing, maintaining, using, operating or interfering with any such protective devices.” The 

Reorganized Debtors seek to disallow and expunge one No Liability Claim that asserts amounts for 

damages caused to electronics (the “Rule 2 Claim”) by a power surge. The Reorganized Debtors are not 

liable for such damages under Rule 2, and therefore the Rule 2 Claim should be disallowed and expunged. 

d. No Liability Based on Investigation. These are Proofs of Claim for which the 

Reorganized Debtors conducted a thorough review and concluded that there was no basis for liability. 

The Reorganized Debtors’ review of each Proof of Claim consisted of (i) analysis of their books and 

records and any information submitted in connection with the Proofs of Claim, and (ii) investigation of 

the facts alleged by the Claimant. In each instance, the Reorganized Debtors discovered no basis for the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13671 Filed: 04/14/23 Entered: 04/14/23 09:24:46 Page 4

of 5
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13671 Filed: 04/14/23 Entered: 04/14/23 09:24:46 Page 5

of 5