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 

Richard W. Slack (pro hac vice) 

(richard.slack@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER BENVENUTTI KIM LLP 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kbkllp.com) 

David A. Taylor (#247433) 

(dtaylor@kbkllp.com) 

Thomas B. Rupp (#278041) 

(trupp@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) 

REORGANIZED DEBTORS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT 

OF OMNIBUS MOTION TO ENFORCE THE 

DISCHARGE AND INJUNCTION PROVISIONS OF 

PLAN AND CONFIRMATION ORDER AGAINST 

CERTAIN PENDING ACTIONS 

[Related to Dkt. No. 13685] 

Date: May 24, 2023 

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

Place: (Tele/Videoconference 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# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 1

of 8
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 (“PG&E”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility” and together 

with PG&E, the “Debtors” or “Reorganized Debtors”), in the above-captioned chapter 11 cases (the 

“Chapter 11 Cases”), hereby submit this reply in support of the Reorganized Debtors’ Omnibus Motion 

to Enforce the Discharge and Injunction Provisions of Plan and Confirmation Order Against Certain 

Pending Actions filed on April 26, 2023 [Dkt. No. 13685] (the “Motion”)1 and in response to the 

oppositions submitted by Efren Robinson [Dkt. No. 13721] (the “Richards Willis Plaintiffs”) 2; Liza 

Sims, individually and on behalf of Edna Gleason, Thomas Gardner, and Jaydene Gardner (the “Luciano 

Plaintiffs”) [Dkt. Nos. 13710–13713]; and the opposition submitted by William B. Abrams3 [Dkt. 

Nos. 13714–13715] (collectively with the Richards Willis Plaintiffs and the Luciano Plaintiffs, the 

“Responding Parties”). Additional support for the Motion is provided in the Supplemental Declaration 

of Keith E. Eggleton in Support of Reorganized Debtors’ Omnibus Motion to Enforce the Discharge and 

Injunction Provisions of Plan and Confirmation Order Against Certain Pending Actions (the 

“Supplemental Eggleton Declaration”), filed concurrently herewith. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The Responding Parties, by opposing the Motion, seek to undo the key provision at the center of 

the Plan: the Channeling Injunction, which was heavily litigated before this Court during a weeks-long 

evidentiary hearing that culminated in the Court’s entry of the Confirmation Order approving the Plan. 

The Channeling Injunction channeled to the Fire Victim Trust all Fire Victim Claims—defined in the 

Plan to include claims of any nature in any way arising out of the Fires (as defined in the Plan)—and 

1

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

the Motion. 

2

 It is unclear why the opposition of the Richards Willis Plaintiffs only names Mr. Robinson as a party. 

The table of Pending Actions attached as Exhibit 2 to the Motion included four Pending Actions where 

Richards Willis PC was counsel of record. The action involving Mr. Robinson also included two other 

named plaintiffs. Out of an abundance of caution, this reply refers to the Richards Willis Plaintiffs in 

plural, and the Reorganized Debtors intend to seek the relief requested in the Motion against all of the 

Richards Willis Plaintiffs, including those in the recently-discovered Johnson case, discussed below. 

3

 In the Order Regarding Hearing on May 24, 2023 [Dkt. No. 13736], the Court held that Mr. Abrams 

lacked standing to oppose the Motion and would not be permitted to argue at the hearing on the 

Motion. The Reorganized Debtors agree that Mr. Abrams lacks standing. Because the arguments 

raised by Mr. Abrams duplicate those made by the Richards Willis Plaintiffs, the Reorganized Debtors 

submit that Mr. Abrams’ opposition also would fail on its merits, even if he were permitted to be heard. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 2

of 8
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

barred any further prosecution or litigation of any such Fire Victim Claims against the Reorganized 

Debtors. 

The Responding Parties offer three arguments—all of which attempt to challenge and unwind the 

Channeling Injunction provisions of the Plan long after the time to appeal confirmation of the Plan has 

elapsed. None of these arguments has any merit. First, the Richards Willis Plaintiffs argue that the 

waiver of certain rights to appeal under the Fire Victim Claims Resolution Procedures violates their due 

process, without acknowledging that this issue has been litigated multiple times—including by Mr. 

Abrams—with a full and fair opportunity for parties to voice their concerns, and the Court has repeatedly 

held that the opportunity to raise this challenge to the Confirmation Order has long since passed. Second, 

the Richards Willis Plaintiffs argue that the discharge of their Fire Victim Claims should not be effective 

because the Fire Victim Trust has not completed the distribution of its trust assets to all holders of Fire 

Victim Claims. This directly contradicts the Channeling Injunction and the language of the Plan and 

Confirmation Order, which make clear that the Channeling Injunction and Plan discharge are effective 

upon the Effective Date of the Plan—which occurred nearly three years ago. Finally, the Luciano 

Plaintiffs argue that their theories of PG&E’s liability for punitive and exemplary damages lie beyond 

the scope of the Channeling Injunction. This is simply incorrect, as the Plan’s definition of “Fire Claims” 

expressly includes punitive and exemplary damages. 

In sum, the Responding Parties’ arguments boil down to a plea that the plain language of the 

Confirmation Order—which requires that they dismiss their Pending Actions—should be altered or 

disregarded. It should not. The Confirmation Order was extensively negotiated and long ago approved 

by the Court; the Plan it approves was consummated almost three years ago and a countless number of 

parties have since relied on the Plan’s approved terms. The Responding Parties’ efforts to relitigate the 

Plan and Confirmation Order must not be permitted. The Motion should be granted, and the Responding 

Parties should be required to dismiss their Pending Actions, and if they do not promptly comply, the 

Reorganized Debtors should be permitted to seek sanctions. 

II. DEVELOPMENTS SINCE FILING THE MOTION 

Since filing the Motion, counsel for the Reorganized Debtors received positive informal responses 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 3

of 8
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

from two attorneys for State Court Plaintiffs. The first was from Christian Krankemann, counsel in 

eleven known Pending Actions in Sonoma County Superior Court. (Suppl. Eggleton Decl. ¶ 4.) Plaintiffs 

in those actions have now filed requests for dismissal, and the dockets reflect that those eleven Pending 

Actions in Sonoma County Superior Court have been dismissed. (Id.) The second response was from 

Larry Peluso, counsel in one known Pending Action pending in San Francisco Superior Court. (Id. ¶ 5.) 

Mr. Peluso has informed counsel for the Reorganized Debtors that he is attempting to file papers 

requesting dismissal of his Pending Action in San Francisco County Superior Court.4 (Id.) Two other 

attorneys (John Meyer and Cecelia Fusich)—co-counsel in one known Pending Action in Butte County 

Superior Court—did not respond formally or informally to the Motion. (Id. ¶ 6.) 

After the Motion was filed, while preparing for a court hearing in the Robinson Pending Action 

involving some of the Richards Willis Plaintiffs, counsel for the Reorganized Debtors discovered a new 

action against the Debtors that appears to assert what would be Fire Victim Claims as defined in the Plan. 

(Id. ¶ 7.) The plaintiffs are represented by Richards Willis PC, and the case is pending in the San 

Francisco Superior Court as Johnson, et al. v. PG&E Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-19-579965. 

(Id.) Counsel for the Reorganized Debtors does not believe the Debtors were ever served with a summons 

in the Johnson action. (Id.) 

The Robinson and Johnson cases were both scheduled for order to show cause hearings on May 2, 

2023, concerning potential dismissal of the cases. (Id. ¶ 8.) Shortly before the hearings, the plaintiffs in 

those cases filed the statements attached as Exhibit A to the Supplemental Eggleton Declaration. (Id. 

¶ 9, Ex. A.) In response, the San Francisco County Superior Court canceled the order to show cause 

hearings and scheduled case management conferences “for status report re bankruptcy” for September 6, 

2023. (Id. ¶ 10.) 

Because counsel of record in the Robinson action—who has received notice of the Motion and 

4

 Out of an abundance of caution, the Reorganized Debtors will not amend the Proposed Order to 

remove these Pending Actions but recognize that the necessity of the Order will be mooted as to these 

Pending Actions once dismissed. The Reorganized Debtors reserve their rights to file the Enforcement 

Order Notice and take any other action authorized by the Proposed Order should these Pending Actions 

not be finally dismissed or if they are subsequently reopened for any reason. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 4

of 8
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

had an opportunity to file a response to it—is also counsel of record in the Johnson action, the 

Reorganized Debtors request that the Johnson action be added to the final version of the table of Pending 

Actions to be annexed to the Proposed Order. 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. The Waiver of Judicial Review in the Confirmation Order Does Not Invalidate the 

Channeling Injunction 

The Richards Willis Plaintiffs argue that the Channeling Injunction should not be enforced against 

them because they were allegedly wrongly deprived of their certain appellate rights by the Plan and 

Confirmation Order.5 The Richards Willis Plaintiffs cite no legal principle that permits them to set aside 

or modify a Confirmation Order that was entered three years ago—nor do they acknowledge that the 

Court heard and disposed of these same arguments—made by Mr. Abrams, among others—in July 2020, 

and then numerous times thereafter. See, e.g., Order Denying Motions for Reconsideration, entered 

July 22, 2020 [Dkt. No. 8478]; Order Denying Motion to Recuse, entered December 8, 2022, at 8-9 [Dkt 

No. 13326] (“Some portion of almost every motion [Mr. Abrams] filed post-confirmation has called into 

question the fairness of the judicial review procedure . . . and has requested that judicial review be 

expanded to more claimants. Mr. Abrams has not appealed the Confirmation Order or the rulings on any 

of his prior motions.”). 

The fact that they disagree with—but no longer have the right to challenge or appeal—an aspect 

of the Confirmation Order does not permit the Richards Willis Plaintiffs simply to disregard the 

Confirmation Order and the Channeling Injunction. 

B. The Plan Permanently Discharged All Fire Victim Claims on the Effective Date 

The Richards Willis Plaintiffs argue that it is premature to discharge the Fire Victim Claims 

5

 The UAL case cited by the Richards Willis Plaintiffs does not support the proposition that they are 

advancing regarding due process rights, and counsel for the Reorganized Debtors has been unable to 

determine if there is another opinion concerning the UAL case that the Richards Willis Plaintiffs may 

be referring to. See In re UAL Corporation, 412 F. 3d 775 (7th Cir. 2005) (bankruptcy court injunction 

by forbidding the sale of certain employee stocks of the debtor). The citation offered for the Indiana 

Harbor Belt Railroad Co. case leads to a totally unrelated Ninth Circuit case, and counsel for the 

Reorganized Debtors has been unable to determine which case the Richards Willis Plaintiffs are 

referring to. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 5

of 8
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

asserted in the Pending Actions because the Fire Victim Trust has not made full distributions on all Fire 

Victim Claims. See Richards Willis Plfs Opp’n 3, Dkt. No. 13721. They are wrong. The Plan is clear 

that the Channeling Injunction, and the accompanying discharge, became effective on the Effective Date 

(which occurred on July 1, 2020): 

Treatment: On the Effective Date, all HoldCo Fire Victim Claims shall be deemed 

satisfied, settled, released and discharged through the treatment provided to Utility Fire 

Victim Claims. Pursuant to the Channeling Injunction, each holder of a HoldCo Fire Victim 

Claim shall have its Claim permanently channeled to the Fire Victim Trust, and such Claim 

shall be asserted exclusively against the Fire Victim Trust in accordance with its terms, 

with no recourse to the Debtors, the Reorganized Debtors, or their respective assets and 

properties. 

Plan § 4.7(a) (emphasis added). 

On the Effective Date, the Debtors’ liability for all Utility Fire Victim Claims shall be fully 

assumed by, and be the sole responsibility of the Fire Victim Trust, and all such Claims 

shall be satisfied solely from the assets of the Fire Victim Trust. Pursuant to the Channeling 

Injunction, each holder of a Utility Fire Victim Claim shall have its Claim permanently 

channeled to the Fire Victim Trust, and such Claim shall be asserted exclusively against 

the Fire Victim Trust in accordance with its terms, with no recourse to the Debtors, the 

Reorganized Debtors, or their respective assets and properties. 

Plan § 4.26(c) (emphasis added). 

The status of distributions to be made by the Fire Victim Trust thus has no bearing on the validity 

or permanence of the Channeling Injunction or the other discharge and injunction provisions of the Plan 

and Confirmation Order. The Reorganized Debtors received a discharge of all Fire Victim Claims by 

virtue of their funding of the Fire Victim Trust and by operation of the Plan upon the Effective Date. See

Plan § 4.26(b) (“Funding of the Fire Victim Trust as provided above shall be in restitution and full and 

final satisfaction, release, and discharge of all Fire Victim Claims. Each holder of a Fire Victim Claim 

shall receive payment as determined in accordance with the Fire Victim Claims Resolution Procedures.”). 

C. The Claims of the Luciano Plaintiffs Are Fire Victim Claims, Including Their 

Demand for Punitive or Exemplary Damages 

The Luciano Plaintiffs employ a different tactic than the Richards Willis Plaintiffs, arguing that 

the Channeling Injunction does not apply because they seek punitive damages, which they assert are 

outside the scope of a Fire Claim subject to the Channeling Injunction. They are wrong. The opposition 

filed by the Luciano Plaintiffs explicitly states that their claims against the Debtors in both of their 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 6

of 8
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

Pending Actions arose directly from the 2018 Camp Fire.6 See Luciano Plfs. Opp’n at 2, Dkt. No. 13710; 

Luciano Decl., Ex. 2, ¶ 2, and Ex. 3, ¶ 2, Dkt. No. 13711. As such, they fall within the definition of Fire 

Victim Claims under the Plan. 

The definition of “Fire Claims” that are covered by the Channeling Injunction include: “any Claim 

against the Debtors in any way arising out of the Fires, including, but not limited to, any Claim resulting 

from the Fires for . . . (h) punitive and exemplary damages under California Civil Code §§ 733 and 3294, 

California Public Utilities Code § 2106, or otherwise.”7 Plan § 1.78 (emphasis added). 

The Luciano Plaintiffs assert that their Fire Victim Claims, for punitive or exemplary damages, 

cannot fall within the scope of the Channeling Injunction because they are not dischargeable in 

bankruptcy. They offer no support for this proposition, which is perhaps a misinterpretation of 

section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excludes, subject to a timely-filed adversary 

proceeding, claims arising from willful or malicious injury from the discharge of an individual debtor, 

and is therefore not relevant to these Chapter 11 Cases. More importantly, again, the time to challenge 

the plain language of the Channeling Injunction has long expired. The Luciano Plaintiffs provide no 

basis—and there is none—to modify or amend the terms of the Channeling Injunction years after 

approval of the Plan and entry of the Confirmation Order. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons stated above and in the Motion, the Reorganized Debtors respectfully request that 

this Court overrule the objections of the Responding Parties and enter an order substantially in the form 

of the Proposed Order (as amended to include the Johnson case discussed above), granting the relief 

requested in the Motion and granting such other relief as is just and proper. 

6

 “Fires,” as defined in the Plan, means the fires that occurred in Northern California, listed on 

Exhibit A to the Plan, which includes the 2018 Camp Fire. Plan § 1.86. 

7

 The Luciano Plaintiffs refer specifically to California Civil Code § 3294 and California Public 

Utilities Code § 2106 as bases for their claims. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 7

of 8
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

Dated: May 17, 2023 

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

KELLER BENVENUTTI KIM LLP

By: /s/ Thomas B. Rupp 

 Thomas B. Rupp 

Attorneys for Debtors and Reorganized Debtors

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13741 Filed: 05/17/23 Entered: 05/17/23 15:10:39 Page 8

of 8