-1-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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

John E. Lattin (State Bar No. 167876)

 jlattin@ostergar.com

OSTERGAR LAW GROUP P.C.

9110 Irvine Center Drive

Irvine, California 92618

Phone: (949) 357-2544 | Fax: (949) 305-4591

Attorneys for Creditor

DAVID ALONZO and all similarly situated

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFRONIA - SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION, 

and 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

Bankruptcy Case: 3:19-bk-30088 DM

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

DECLARATION OF

JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF 

CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S

MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23

TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

[Motion to Extend Application of 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 to 

Class Proofs of Claim Filed 

Concurrently Herewith] 

DATE: November 19, 2019

TIME: 10:00 a.m.

DEPT: 17

/ / /

/ / /

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 1

of 7
-2-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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, John E. Lattin, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the 

State of California, and I am counsel of record for Attorneys for Creditor

DAVID ALONZO and all similarly situated (“Alonzo”). I have personal knowledge 

of the facts contained in this declaration, and if called upon to do so, I could and 

would testify competently to them.

2. On June 18, 2019, Class Representative filed an action against Pacific 

Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”) in San Francisco County Superior Court, 

alleging PG&E’s failure to pay final wages to employees on termination and 

resignation of employment in violation of the California Labor Code. 

3. On October 10, 2019, Class Representative, on behalf of himself and the 

putative Class, filed Proofs of Claim against Debtors Pacific Gas and Electric 

Corporation (Case No. 19-30088, See Claim Nos. 276-1) and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (Case No. 19-30089, See Claim Nos. 74-1) (collectively, the 

“Class Proofs of Claim”).

4. On October 10, 2019, Class Representative, on behalf of himself and the 

putative Class, filed Proofs of Claim against Debtors Pacific Gas and Electric 

Corporation (Case No. 19-30088) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Case No. 

19-30089) (collectively, the “Class Proofs of Claim”). See, the true and correct copy 

of the Proof of Claim against Pacific Gas and Electric Corporation, Claim No. 276-1, 

attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and the Proof of Claim against Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, Claim No. 74-1, attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

5. The overwhelming majority of putative Class members likely have not 

received notice of the applicable Bar Date. The instant Motion has been timely filed, 

and thus, no undue delay, surprise, or disruption to the administration of the case 

exists. Extending Rule 23 to the Class Proofs of Claim would promote efficiency and 

serve the bankruptcy goals of bringing all claims forward, ensuring creditor 

compensation, and promoting equality of distribution.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 2

of 7
-3-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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. On June 18, 2019, Class Representative filed a Class Action Complaint 

against Sears PG&E in the San Francisco County Superior Court (the “Superior 

Court”), styled Alonzo v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco County 

Superior Court, Case No. CGC-19-576805 (the “Class Action”), which is the 

operative complaint in the Class Action. The Complaint asserts a claim against 

PG&E for violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203 and related waiting

time penalties. See a true and correct copy of the Class Action Complaint attached 

hereto as Exhibit 3.

7. The Class Action Complaint alleges as follows: 

• On or about June 30, 2016, PG&E hired Class Representative. Over 

the years, Class Representative was promoted and ultimately became 

a salaried supervisor. As a salaried supervisor, PG&E paid Class 

Representative a base salary plus overtime. In addition, PG&E 

provided Class Representative paid vacations pursuant to PG&E’s 

paid vacation policy.

• On March 25, 2019, PG&E terminated Class Representative’s 

employment. Class Representative’s termination of employment by 

PG&E was involuntary. At the time of Class Representative’s 

termination, PG&E paid him once per month. At the time of his 

termination of employment, Class Representative had accrued 123 

hours of vested vacation pay at the rate of $72.05/hour in the total 

amount of $8,862.15. 

• PG&E failed to pay Class Representative’s vested vacation time 

immediately upon Class Representative’s date of termination (i.e., 

March 24, 2019). Rather, PG&E created a payroll check issued to 

Class Representative in the gross amount of $11, 023.65, which 

included Class Representative’s vested vacation pay in the amount of 

$8,862.15. The “Check Date” is “3/29/2019”. However, PG&E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 3

of 7
-4-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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

failed to deliver said payroll check to Class Representative until 

April 4, 2019, which was the following pay period.

• As a result of PG&E’s failure to pay all earned and vested vacation 

pay upon Class Representative’s involuntary termination of 

employment, PG&E failed to pay all final wages owed to Class 

Representative in a timely manner.

• The operative complaint alleges the existence of the following class: 

“All of [PG&E’s] former salaried employees in California who were 

paid once per month and who had earned and vested vacation pay at 

the time of their separation of employment and whose during the 

three years immediately prior to the filing of the Complaint.”

• Class Representative is informed and believes he and all other 

members of the putative Class are the victims of PG&E’s systemic 

failure to the comply with the California Labor Code. Class 

Representative is further informed and believes a standard and 

reliable methodology exists that would enable him to measure 

damages across the putative Class, using data and information in 

PG&E’s possession (such as former employee lists, salary data, and 

final pay data).

8. On January 29, 2019, PG&E and its affiliate filed voluntary petitions for 

relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, as a result of which the Class 

Action was automatically stayed pursuant to Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

9. The Court set a General Bar Date of October 18, 2019 for the filing of 

claims against the Debtors.

10. On October 10, 2019, Class Representative, on behalf of himself and the 

putative Class, filed Proofs of Claim against PG&E and Pacific Gas and Electric 

Corporation (collectively, the “Class Proofs of Claim”). 

11. The Class Representative contends the evidence adduced in the Class 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 4

of 7
-5-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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

Action points to a large estimate of potential members, numbering into the hundreds, 

if not thousands. On its company profile, PG&E reports having 24,000 employees. 

It would be impracticable and uneconomical to require hundreds, if not thousands, of 

former, salaried employees to individually litigate their claims.

12. Class Representative alleges PG&E engaged in a systemic failure to pay 

vested vacation pay with final wages and delayed paying vested vacation pay for 

several days. 

13. Class Representative’s and the Class’ claims arise out of the same 

course of conduct (i.e., PG&E’s failure to timely pay vested vacation pay with final 

wages), are based on the same legal theories, and will require the same kinds of 

evidence to prove. 

14. Class counsel has litigated dozens of wage and hour class actions. 

15. PG&E’s course of conduct in failing to include vested vacation in final 

wages, and therefore, failing to timely pay final wages are central issues that call for 

proof common to all members of the putative Class, and have resulted in damages 

which can be measured across the entire Class.

16. The individual members of the Classes are numerous and are located 

across the state of California. As a practical matter, it is likely that most Class 

members have not received actual notice of the General Bar Date. 

17. The claims administration process is ongoing, and the Class Proofs of 

Claim were filed on October 10, 2019, in advance of the General Bar Date.

18. The Class’ claims are no surprise to PG&E, given that the Class 

Representative filed the Class Action on June 18, 2019, and subsequently received 

Notice of Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim in Chapter 11 Cases on or about July 

15, 2019.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 5

of 7
-6-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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

19. The filing of the Class Proofs of Claim will promote efficiency by 

placing hundreds of individual claims before the court in a single class claim with 

competent counsel representing the interests of the class.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 

the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on October 

21, 2019, at Irvine, California.

Dated: October 21, 2019

 

John E. Lattin

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 6

of 7
-7-

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND 

APPLICATION OF FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

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

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

United Stated District Court for the Northern District of California

Case No. 3:19-bk-30089 (DM)

DECLARATION OF JOHN E. LATTIN IN SUPPORT OF CLASS 

REPRESENTATIVE’S MOTION TO EXTEND APPLICATION OF FEDERAL 

RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 23 TO CLASS PROOFS OF CLAIM

I hereby certify that I caused the foregoing to be served and filed with the 

Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California using the court’s CM/ECF system on October 21, 2019. 

I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CMF/ECF users 

and that service will be accomplished by the court’s CM/ECF system. 

 /s/ John E. Lattin 

 John E. Lattin

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4370-1 Filed: 10/21/19 Entered: 10/21/19 23:26:35 Page 7

of 7