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 

 1 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

RICHARD A. MARSHACK, #107291 

rmarshack@marshackhays.com 

DAVID A. WOOD #272406 

dwood@marshackhays.com 

LAILA MASUD, #311731 

lmasud@marshckhays.com 

MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

870 Roosevelt, Irvine, CA 92620 

Tel: 949-333-7777 -/- Fax: 949-333-7778

GERALD SINGLETON, #208783 

JOHN C. LEMON, #175847 

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC 

450 A Street, 5th Floor 

San Diego, CA 92101 

Tel. (619) 771-3473 

Email: gerald@slffirm.com 

 john@slffirm.com 

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 and, 

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY, 

 Debtors. 

 

Affects: 

☐ PG&E Corporation 

☐ Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

☒ Both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in Lead Case, 

 No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case Jointly Administered) 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTORS’ MOTION 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 

502(c) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 

WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION 

PROCEDURES 

[Docket No. 3091] 

Hearing: 

Date: August 14, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

Ctrm: Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 1 of

17
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 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. Summary of Argument ..............................................................................................................2

2. Procedural Background ..............................................................................................................3

3. Legal Argument .........................................................................................................................3

A. Claims estimation ...........................................................................................................3

B. Debtors’ Motion is masquerading its true intent, which is to cap victims’ 

potential recovery while denying those same victims due process. ...............................4

C. Alternative proposal to estimation .................................................................................8

4. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................11

Declaration of Gerald Singleton ..........................................................................................................12

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases

211 B.R. at 566-67 ................................................................................................................................ 6 

Beatrice Co. v. Rusty Jones, Inc., 

153 B.R. 535, 536 (N.D. Ill. 1993) ................................................................................................... 4 

Dow Corning Corp., 

211 B.R. 545 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1997) ........................................................................................... 6 

In re Apex Oil Co., 

107 B.R. 189 (Bankr. E.D. MI 1997) ............................................................................................... 4 

In re Frontier Airlines, Inc., 

137 B.R. 811, 814 (D. Co. 1992) ...................................................................................................... 4 

In re N. Am. Health Care, Inc., 

544 B.R. 684 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016) ............................................................................................. 8 

In re North American Health Care, Inc., 

 544 B.R. 684, 689 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016) .................................................................................... 4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 2 of

17
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 

 ii 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

In re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland, 

339 B.R. 215 (Bankr. D. Or. 2006) .................................................................................................. 6 

Libby v. Illinois High School Ass'n, 

921 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1990) .............................................................................................................. 4 

Statutes

11 U.S.C. § 362 ..................................................................................................................................... 7 

11 U.S.C. § 502(c) ............................................................................................................................ 3, 4 

11 U.S.C. §502(c)(1) ............................................................................................................................. 3 

11 U.S.C. § 1141(d) .......................................................................................................................... 7, 8 

28 U.S.C. § 1411(a) .............................................................................................................................. 7 

28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(c) ............................................................................................................................ 5 

28 U.S.C. §157(b)(2)(B) ................................................................................................................... 3, 5 

U.S.C. §§ 101–1532 .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Other Authorities

Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 502.04[3] (16th ed. 2015) .............................................................................. 4 

House Report No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 354 (1977); 

Senate Report No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2nd Sess. 65 (1978), 

U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1978, pp. 5851, 6310 ..................................................................... 4 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 3 of

17
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 

 2 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

TO THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

JUDGE, THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, AND ALL INTERESTED 

PARTIES: 

The Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”) and Marshack Hays LLP, together with several other firms, 

represent approximately 5,200 victims of the fires started by PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) and/or 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PGE Company,” collectively with PG&E the “Debtors”) in 

2015 (“Butte Fire”), 2017 (the twenty fires collectively referred to as the “North Bay Fires”) and 

2018 (“Camp Fire”).1 The SLF Claimants submit this opposition (“Opposition”) to Debtors’ Motion 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 502(c) For the Establishment of Wildfire Claims Estimation 

Procedures (“Estimation Motion”), filed on July 18, 2019, as Docket No 3091. 

1. Summary of Argument 

On January 29, 2019, Debtors filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions under Title 11 of the 

United States Bankruptcy Code (“Petition Date”). Debtors’ stated reason for seeking bankruptcy 

protection was that they were facing $30 billion in damages from the 2015 Butte Fire, the 2017 

North Bay Fires (18 fires in 10 Northern California counties), and the 2018 Camp Fire. Together, 

these fires burned nearly 500,000 acres, killed over 100 people, destroyed almost 20,000 homes, and 

left tens of thousands of people homeless. 

The SLF Claimants consist of individuals from each of the three major fires: the 2015 Butte 

Fire (coordinated in Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento under JCCP Number 4853), 

the 2017 North Bay Fires (coordinated in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 

under JCCP Number 4955), and the 2018 Camp Fire (which had not been coordinated or 

consolidated at the time of the Petition Date). The SLF Claimants sustained damages in each of the 

eighteen major North Bay Fires. Accordingly, the SLF Claimants comprise a more complete 

representative group of fire victims than any other group in this proceeding. 

 

1

 The claimants represented by SLF, Marshack Hays LLP, and other firms are jointly referred to as 

the “SLF Claimants.” 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 4 of

17
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 

 3 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

This Court must decide how to square each wildfire victim’s right to an individual 

determination of damages (which due process requires) with the necessity of resolving 20,000 to 

30,000 claims within a reasonable period of time given the upcoming legislative deadline of June 30, 

2020. However, the estimation process proposed by Debtors in the Motion fails to account for the 

due process rights of each wildfire victim. The SLF Claimants propose an alternative methodology, 

which has been previously employed, to promptly resolve outstanding matters with the ultimate goal 

of meeting the June 30, 2020, California Legislative Deadline in AB-1054. 

2. Procedural Background 

 Debtors continue to operate their businesses and manage their properties as debtors in 

possession pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 1107(a) & 1108. Debtors’ Chapter 11 Cases are being jointly 

administered for procedural purposes only pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure (“FRBP”). On February 12, 2019, the United States Trustee (“U.S. Trustee”) 

appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (“Creditors Committee”). A torts claimants 

committee has also been formed (“TCC”). 

None of the SLF Claimants are members of the TCC. 

 On July 18, 2019, as Dk. No. 3091, Debtors filed the instant Motion seeking to establish 

wildfire claims estimation procedures. 

3. Legal Argument 

A. Claims estimation 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(c), a bankruptcy court can estimate contingent or unliquidated 

claims to establish the amount (if any) distributable to those claim holders under the plan if 

liquidation of the claims would “unduly delay the administration of the case” 28 U.S.C. 

§157(b)(2)(B); 11 U.S.C. §502(c)(1). The essence of Section2 502(c) is that “all claims against the 

debtor be converted into dollar amounts.”3 If the goal of avoiding undue delay can be achieved 

 

2

 Unless otherwise indicated, all Chapter and Section references are to the Bankruptcy Code, 11 

U.S.C. §§ 101–1532. 

3

 House Report No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 354 (1977); Senate Report No. 95-989, 95th 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 5 of

17
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 

 4 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

through a limited mode or form of claim estimation, a bankruptcy court ought not to expand the 

estimation’s scope beyond this limited extent absent compelling reasons to do so. See In re North 

American Health Care, Inc., 544 B.R. 684, 689 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016)(“Because estimation is a 

second-best method, the Court concludes that the scope of unliquidated claim estimation in this case 

should be confined to the extent necessary to accomplish the overarching goal of avoiding undue 

delay in this case’s administration and not expanded beyond that point.”) Stated otherwise, the 

bankruptcy court is not required to estimate a claim for distribution purposes unless it determines 

that liquidating the claim would unduly delay the case. In re Apex Oil Co., 107 B.R. 189 (Bankr. 

E.D. MI 1997). Where undue delay is shown, the court must estimate the subject claims only to the 

extent necessary to accomplish the overarching goal of avoiding undue delay. In re Frontier 

Airlines, Inc., 137 B.R. 811, 814 (D. Co. 1992). 

B. Debtors’ Motion is masquerading its true intent, which is to cap 

victims’ potential recovery while denying those same victims due 

process. 

Section 502(c) states that estimation is “for purpose of allowance under this section.” 11 

U.S.C. §502(c). As such, “an estimation under section 502(c) generally should result in an allowed 

claim for all purposes in the bankruptcy case.” Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 502.04[3] (16th ed. 2015). 

But, even if a bankruptcy court’s estimation is not for such a limited purpose, its order allowing or 

disallowing a claim against a bankruptcy estate has the same effect as any other order of a court of 

competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, subject to due process limitations, principles of judicial finality 

apply, including the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See Beatrice Co. v. Rusty 

Jones, Inc., 153 B.R. 535, 536 (N.D. Ill. 1993)(holding that the district court “can reverse a 

bankruptcy court’s decision on the method for ascertaining the value of claims only when it is so 

fundamentally wrong that no reasonable person could agree with it”) (citing to Libby v. Illinois High 

School Ass'n, 921 F.2d 96 (7th Cir. 1990)). 

 

Cong., 2nd Sess. 65 (1978), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1978, pp. 5851, 6310 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 6 of

17
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 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

For purposes of determining plan feasibility and voting issues, Debtors assert that estimation 

is a core proceeding that is “standard in mass tort bankruptcies.” Mot., pg. 3:6-10; pg. 3:13-19. 

However, Debtors gloss over the fact that estimation “of contingent or unliquidated personal injury 

tort or wrongful death claims against the estate for purposes of distribution” are, in fact, non-core 

proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B). Unless all parties consent, bankruptcy judges may not 

finally determine non-core matters as those matters must be determined by the federal district court. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(c). 

The Motion constitutes a thinly disguised attempt to execute a claims estimation process for 

purposes of distribution rather than strictly for voting and plan feasibility purposes. The 

contradictory nature of the Motion reveals Debtors’ actual intent. Initially, Debtors declare that they 

are seeking claim estimation to “estimate voting and plan feasibility.” Mot., pg. 15:6-7. Yet, 

immediately thereafter, Debtors true motives are revealed: 

[w]hether and to what extent the results of that estimating ultimately may be used 

to determine the amount of consideration to be provided to claimants or groups of 

claimants as part of a Plan, consensual or otherwise, is a question that can be 

determined, if it is presented at a later stage. 

Mot., pg. 15:8-15 (emphasis added). 

A careful reading of the proposed phases of estimation confirm that Debtor is seeking 

estimation for purposes of distribution, which is outside this Court’s jurisdiction and far beyond the 

simple goal of avoiding undue delay. Phase 3 of the proposed estimation process is particularly 

concerning. See Mot., pg. 4:21-8:21. In Phase 3, Debtors propose to determine aggregate damages 

for all claimants, based on a small sampling, and without individualized review: 

Phase 3 would involve the resolution of questions around the likelihood of success of 

the Wildfire Claims on other issues such as negligence, the recoverability of certain 

categories of damages (such as the cost of rebuilding damaged structures, rather than 

the accepted standard of diminution in value, see 6 Witkin, Summary 11th Torts § 

1912 (2019) (“the basic and normal rule uses diminution in value as the measure; i.e., 

the difference between the market value of the land before and after the injury”)) and 

the aggregate estimate of overall damages based upon sampling of claims and expert 

testimony. 

Mot., pg. 7:19-18:2 (emphasis added). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 7 of

17
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 

 6 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

It appears Debtors propose to use the claim estimation process to create a limited fund for 

payment of all present tort claims, thereby limiting the liability Debtors will have on those claims, all 

without allowing the SLF Claimants and other tort claimants to conduct discovery. Id. Despite 

Debtors’ insistence that the proposed estimation process is for confirmation and voting purposes 

only, the estimation process may also significantly affect distribution. See In re Roman Catholic 

Archbishop of Portland, 339 B.R. 215 (Bankr. D. Or. 2006). 

In Roman Catholic, the bankruptcy court ruled that, if the debtor wished to create a trust with 

a cap on claims, due process likely requires individual estimation of claims, rather than the 

aggregate estimation process proposed by the Debtor in the Motion, which will divide the claims 

into a few groups and use the same estimated amount for each claim in the given group. Id. The 

Court explained, “[a] claimant’s right to a remedy for tortious behavior could be substantially and 

irreversibly affected by the estimation, where estimation is being used to establish a cap on the fund 

that will be available to pay liquidated claims, and that fund could prove to be inadequate if the 

estimate is too low. In that circumstance, due process likely requires an individualized estimation of 

claims, as opposed to the aggregate estimation process debtor proposes.” Id., at 223. 

Debtors’ proposal to use estimation to effectively cap the amount of the fund available to pay 

all tort claimants is similar to that proposed in In re Dow Corning Corp., 211 B.R. 545 (Bankr. E.D. 

Mich. 1997). In Dow Corning, the debtor allegedly sought estimation of the claims to establish the 

feasibility of the plan and proposed to deposit into a trust a certain amount for payment of pending 

personal injury claims. The court, however, determined that Dow Corning’s strategy behind its 

request for “estimation of the aggregate value of tort claims is to limit the amount it will ultimately 

have to pay on account of tort liability.” 211 B.R. at 566-67. The Michigan bankruptcy court 

explained that Dow Corning “assumes that estimation will lead to a discharge of all liability and that 

individual post-confirmation liquidation can only be had against a trust fund established as part of a 

plan of reorganization regardless of whether such liquidation proves that the estimate was too 

low.” Id. at 567. (emphasis added). The bankruptcy court acknowledged: 

Allowing a bankruptcy judge to estimate the aggregate value of all claims for the 

apparently benign reason of determining feasibility of a plan of reorganization, when 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 8 of

17
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 

 7 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

combined with the effects of 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d), can create the result that the 

estimation was actually for purposes of distribution as well. 

Id. at 569. 

The bankruptcy court also pointed out that the claimants had a right to a jury trial, and stated 

“if estimation for plan confirmation purposes results in de facto estimation for distribution purposes 

via the effects of the plan of reorganization and the discharge provisions of § 1141(d), a claimant's 

right to a jury trial for purposes of liquidating her claim becomes hollow.” Id. (emphasis added). 

Such an outcome would seem to be inconsistent with at least the spirit of 28 U.S.C. § 1411(a), 

providing as it does that “this chapter and title 11 do not affect any right to trial by jury that an 

individual has under applicable nonbankruptcy law with regard to a personal injury or wrongful 

death claim.” 28 U.S.C. § 1411(a). 

Here, Debtors are attempting to execute a similar plan as Dow Corning. Debtors seek 

estimation in the aggregate amounts of the tort claims for the purported purpose of confirmation and 

voting. But, they in fact, intend to use the estimation, along with the bankruptcy court’s 

determination of liability on inverse condemnation and liability for the Tubbs Fire, to cap the amount 

they will pay on all tort claims, while discharging any actual liability in excess of the estimated 

amount. This Court does not have jurisdiction to estimate personal injury tort claims for purposes of 

distribution, which is in effect what Debtors ask this Court to do. 

The Motion, although masquerading as an estimation motion, seeks to effectively determine 

the cap on the amount of money that will be made available to pay the tort claims of the countless 

victims of the Wildfires. Mot., pg. 7:19-18:2. All without the ability for claimants to conduct 

discovery. Indeed, in light of the provisions of the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362, the 

SLF Claimants have been unable to engage in discovery since the Petition Date. Such lack of due 

process is problematic, as through the Motion, the Debtors seek a determination from this Court 

whether they are liable for the Tubbs Fire. Mot., pg. 6:5-13. All claimants must have the ability to 

propound and examine discovery if this Court is to determine whether Debtors are liable for the 

Tubbs fire. Failure to do so would be a deprivation of due process. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 9 of

17
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 

 8 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

 It is disingenuous to say the estimated aggregate amount does not constitute a cap on 

eventual distributions by the Debtors to the tort claimants. Admittedly, the Motion is devoid of an 

affirmative statement that Debtors will use this estimation process as a basis for capping the tort 

claims under their eventual plan of reorganization. But, if their eventual Chapter 11 plan of 

reorganization somehow makes it “uneconomic for jury trials to go forward (although stopping short 

of outright elimination of the possibility of a jury trial through a Section 1141(d) discharge), the tort 

claimants effectively would be deprived of their Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, which 

...[is]... unfair, prejudicial and an outcome to be avoided. In re N. Am. Health Care, Inc., 544 B.R. 

684 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2016). Simply stated, claimants could suffer abrogation of their right to jury 

trial. Without exception, estimation should not come at the cost of deprivation of due process. 

To the extent the Court is inclined to grant the Motion, SLF Claimants request that any order 

confirming a plan of reorganization contain a provision whereby the tort claims that have not 

previously been resolved (through mediation or otherwise) are not discharged under Section 

1141(d), but instead will be liquidated in amount through trials in state court or federal district court 

(or settled in such courts). 

C. Alternative proposal to estimation 

Debtors settled nearly 2,000 individual cases (involving over 3,500 plaintiffs) from the 2015 

Butte Fire (JCCP 4853). There is a great deal of institutional knowledge among both PG&E and 

attorneys who are experienced in fire cases regarding the value of individual cases. While some of 

these cases were settled through formal mediations, the vast majority were settled through informal 

negotiations between individual plaintiffs' attorneys and outside counsel for PG&E (Quinn Emanuel 

Urquhart & Sullivan). 

The 2015 Butte Fire is one of the 3 major fire complexes (the other two being the 2017 North 

Bay Fires, JCCP 4955, and the 2018 Camp Fire) in which the wildfire creditors suffered damages. 

Like the other two fire complexes, the 2015 Butte Fire involved damages to real and personal 

property, personal injuries, emotional distress, and wrongful deaths. Like the 2017 and 2018 fires, 

the Plaintiffs in the 2015 Butte Fire asserted causes of action for inverse condemnation, negligence, 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 10

of 17
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 

 9 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

and trespass (among others) against PG&E. Accordingly, the settlements in the 2015 Butte Fire 

cases strongly inform both the parties and the Court as to the appropriate amount of the damages in 

the bankruptcy proceeding. 

As has been the case with prior major fires (for example, the 2007 San Diego Fires), the 

Butte Fire cases were settled on an individual basis. Each plaintiff presented a demand, received an 

individual settlement offer, and then determined whether to accept the offer or proceed to trial. 

Here, the complex issue of how to reasonably balance the right to individual determinations 

of damages with the upcoming AB1054 deadline looming is one that will require further briefing, 

negotiations between the parties, and, in all likelihood, an ultimate decision by the Court. But, as an 

initial matter, the SLF Fire Victims’ Claimants would like to offer the following example from the 

Butte Fire cases as a starting point for discussion4

: 

 In July 2017, the Singleton Butte Fire Plaintiffs reached an agreement with PG&E for 

a dispute resolution process that the parties termed “binding mediation.” This process 

was built on a similar “binding mediation” model process that PG&E and the 

Singleton Firm developed for use in the 2007 San Diego Fires; 

 While the precise terms of the process are subject to the mediation privilege, the 

general terms of the process included; (1) PG&E did not contest liability; (2) victims 

did not seek punitive damages; and (3) the parties agreed to a basic framework 

regarding compensatory damages; 

 Thereafter, the counsel for PG&E, Quinn Emanuel, and SLF negotiated each case 

individually in an attempt to reach an informal resolution; 

 If we were unsuccessful, we could attend a “binding mediation” in which both parties 

would present their damages evidence to the mediator and attempt to resolve the case; 

 Prior to attending the “binding mediation” the parties would agree on a range of 

 

4 See, Declaration of Gerald Singleton ¶6-15. The SLF Fire Victim Claimants readily acknowledge 

that one size does not fit all, and different plaintiffs' groups may reach different agreements with 

PG&E and/or put forth different proposals to the Court. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 11

of 17
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 

 10 

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

potential damages (“high-low agreement”); 

 If mediation was unsuccessful, then the mediator would become an arbitrator and 

decide on a final settlement amount within the high low agreement that would be 

binding on the parties. 

The above mentioned-process worked extremely well and the parties were able to settle 

several hundred cases on an individual basis in a short period of time without having to engage in a 

single binding mediation. This process could easily be adapted for use in this bankruptcy 

proceeding. All it would require is for PG&E to; (1) hire a firm (like Quinn Emanuel) that has 

institutional knowledge with respect to fire cases and (2) commit the necessary funds to permit 

enough attorneys from the firm to work on the case to meet the necessary deadline. 

While it certainly would require a great deal of work, if both parties proceeded in good faith, 

the 20,000 to 30,000 individual claims could be resolved on an individual basis prior to the June 30, 

2020 deadline imposed by AB1054. 

SLF has personally resolved well over 1,000 fire cases, including over 700 from the Butte 

Fire alone. If Debtors were to employ/dedicate 10-15 experienced fire attorneys to this case, 

settlements could easily be reached at a 1,000 claims per week. Assuming 30,000 individual fire 

claims, this would take roughly 30 weeks (i.e., 7-8 months) to resolve. If the proposed process began 

in September, it would be done by April or May, and in advance of the June 30, 2020 deadline. 

Granted, not all cases can be resolved this way, so binding mediations should take place 

simultaneously for the small number of cases (likely somewhere between 5-10%) that do not resolve 

informally. Similarly, there will be certain catastrophic cases (specifically, wrongful deaths and 

serious personal injuries) for which the claimants will demand a trial. However, since these cases are 

not numerous (the total number wrongful deaths from all fires is roughly 130, and that includes 25 

from the Tubbs Fire, while the number of serious injury cases is commensurate), they could also be 

completed prior to June 30, 2020. 

While this just one suggestion, the idea is that it is possible for this Court to fashion a 

solution for distributing funds which grants each individual fire victim his/her due process right to a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 12

of 17
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

11

OPPOSITION TO DEBTOR'S MOTION TO ESTABLISH WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION PROCEDURES

4843-6147-2671, v. 1 

4843-4115-9838v.1 0112895-000001 

meaningful individual determination of his/her damages while completing the process by June 30, 

2020. While the task ahead certainly is daunting, it is not impossible. The Court should not succumb 

to Debtors’ suggestion that, given the large number of claims, it must resolve these cases using a 

matrix (or similar group estimation) that does not fully take into account the individual damages 

suffered by each of Debtors’ victims. 

4. Conclusion

Rather than allow victims their day in the proper forum to determine liability and damages or

have the opportunity to fully present their individual damages in a streamlined process, Debtors 

seeks to short cut due process and ram a proposal for all victims – regardless of each individual’s 

rights- down everyone’s throats. For the reasons set forth above, SLF Fire Claimants respectfully 

request that the Motion be denied.

Dated: August 7, 2019 MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

By:______________________________

RICHARD A. MARSHACK 

DAVID A. WOOD 

LAILA MASUD

Attorneys for SINGLETON LAW FIRM 

FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS 

Dated: August ___, 2019 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC 

By:______________________________

GERALD SINGLETON 

AMANDA W. LOCURTO 

Attorneys for SINGLETON LAW FIRM 

FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS 



MARSHACK HAYS LLP

By:____________________________

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 13

of 17
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 

13 

DECLARATION 

Declaration of Gerald Singleton 

I, Gerald Singleton declare as follows: 

1. I am an individual over 18 years of age and competent to make this Declaration. 

2. If called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify as to the facts set 

forth in this Declaration. 

3. The facts set forth below are true of my personal knowledge. 

4. I am an attorney with the Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”). SLF and Marshack Hays 

LLP, together with several other firms, represent approximately 5,200 victims of the fires started 

by PG&E Corporation (“PG&E”) and/or Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PGE Company,” 

collectively with PG&E the “Debtors”) in 2015 (“Butte Fire”), 2017 (the twenty fires generally 

referred to as the “North Bay and Wind Complex Fires”) and 2018 (“Camp Fire”).5

 

5. I make this declaration in support of the SLF Fire Victim Claimants opposition 

(“Opposition”) to PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(“Utility”), as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, “PG&E” or the “Debtors”) Motion 

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 502(c) For the Establishment of Wildfire Claims Estimation 

Procedures (“Estimation Motion”), filed on July 18, 2019, as Docket No 3091. 

6. From the 2015 Butte Fire (JCCP 4853), Debtors have settled nearly 2,000 

individual cases (involving over 3,500 plaintiffs). My firm and I have personally resolved well 

over 1,000 fire cases, including over 700 from the Butte Fire alone. Based on this experience, I 

believe there is a great deal of institutional knowledge among both PG&E and attorneys who are 

experienced in fire cases regarding the value of individual cases. 

7. While some of these cases were settled through formal mediations, the vast 

majority were settled through informal negotiations between individual plaintiffs' attorneys and 

outside counsel for PG&E (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan). 

/ / / 

 

5

 The claimants represented by SLF, Marshack Hays LLP and other firms are jointly referred to as 

the “SLF Claimants.” 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 14

of 17
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 

14

DECLARATION OF GERALD SINGLETON

4843-6147-2671, v. 1

8. The 2015 Butte Fire is one of the 3 major fire complexes (the other two being the

2017 North Bay Fires, JCCP 4955, and the 2018 Camp Fire) in which the wildfire creditors 

suffered damages. Like the other two fire complexes, the 2015 Butte Fire involved damages to 

real and personal property, personal injuries, emotional distress, and wrongful deaths. Like the 

2017 and 2018 fires, the Plaintiffs in the 2015 Butte Fire asserted causes of action for inverse 

condemnation, negligence, and trespass (among others) against PG&E. Accordingly, the 

settlements in the 2015 Butte Fire cases strongly inform both the parties and the Court as to the 

appropriate amount of the damages in the bankruptcy proceeding. 

9. As has been the case with prior major fires (for example, the 2007 San Diego

Fires), the Butte Fire cases were settled on an individual basis. Each plaintiff presented a 

demand, received an individual settlement offer, and then determined whether to accept the offer 

or proceed to trial. 

10. Here, the complex issue of how to reasonably balance the right to individual

determinations of damages with the upcoming AB1054 deadline looming overheard is one that 

will require further briefing, negotiations between the parties, and, in all likelihood, an ultimate 

decision by the Court. But, as an initial matter, I would like to offer the following example from 

the Butte Fire cases as a starting point for discussion6

: 

 In July 2017, the Singleton Butte Fire Plaintiffs reached an agreement with PG&E for

a dispute resolution process that the parties termed “binding mediation.” This process

was built on a similar “binding mediation” model process that PG&E and the

Singleton Firm developed for use in the 2007 San Diego Fires;

 While the precise terms of the process are subject to the mediation privilege, the

general terms of the process included; (1) PG&E did not contest liability; (2) victims

did not seek punitive damages; and (3) the parties agreed to a basic framework

6

 In so doing, the SLF Fire Victim Claimants readily acknowledge that one size does not fit all, and 

different plaintiffs' groups may reach different agreements with PG&E and/or put forth different 

proposals to the Court. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 15

of 17
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 

15

DECLARATION OF GERALD SINGLETON

4843-6147-2671, v. 1

regarding compensatory damages; 

 Thereafter, the counsel for PG&E, Quinn Emanuel, and my firm negotiated each case

individually in an attempt to reach an informal resolution;

 If we were unsuccessful, we could attend a “binding mediation” in which both parties

would present their damages evidence to the mediator and attempt to resolve the case;

 Prior to attending the “binding mediation” the parties would agree on a range of

potential damages (“high-low agreement”);

 If mediation was unsuccessful, then the mediator would become an arbitrator and

decide on a final settlement amount within the high low agreement that would be

binding on the parties.

11. The above mentioned-process worked extremely well and the parties were able to

settle several hundred cases on an individual basis in a short period of time without having to 

engage in a single binding mediation. This process could easily be adapted for use in this 

bankruptcy proceeding. All it would require is for PG&E to; (1) hire a firm (like Quinn 

Emanuel) that has institutional knowledge with respect to fire cases and (2) commit the 

necessary funds to permit enough attorneys from the firm to work on the case to meet the 

necessary deadline. 

12. While it certainly would require a great deal of work, if both parties proceeded in

good faith, the 20,000 to 30,000 individual claims could be resolved on an individual basis prior 

to the June 30, 2020 deadline imposed by AB1054. 

13. My firm has personally resolved well over 1,000 fire cases, including over 700

from the Butte Fire alone. If Debtors were to employ/dedicate 10-15 experienced fire attorneys 

to this case, settlements could easily be reached at a 1,000 claims per week. Assuming 30,000 

individual fire claims, this would take roughly 30 weeks (i.e., 7-8 months) to resolve. If the 

proposed process began in September, it would be done by April or May, and in advance of the 

June 30, 2020 deadline. 

/ / / 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 16

of 17
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 

16

DECLARATION OF GERALD SINGLETON

4843-6147-2671, v. 1

14. Granted, not all cases can be resolved this way, so binding mediations should take

place simultaneously for the small number of cases (likely somewhere between 5-10%) that do 

not resolve informally. Similarly, there will be certain catastrophic cases (specifically, wrongful 

deaths and serious personal injuries) for which the claimants will demand a trial. However, since 

these cases are not numerous (the total number wrongful deaths from all fires is roughly 130, and 

that includes 25 from the Tubbs Fire, while the number of serious injury cases is commensurate), 

they could also be completed prior to June 30, 2020. 

15. While this just one suggestion, the idea is that it is possible for this Court to

fashion a solution for distributing funds which grants each individual fire victim his/her due 

process right to a meaningful individual determination of his/her damages while completing the 

process by June 30, 2020. While the task ahead certainly is daunting, it is not impossible. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on August 7, 2019. 

GERALD SINGLETON

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3451 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 17:25:58 Page 17

of 17