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 

#71414098_v2 1 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Thomas D. Leland (pro hac vice) 

Leah E. Capritta (pro hac vice) 

1801 California Street, Suite 5000 

Denver, Colorado 80202 

Telephone (303) 974-6660 

Facsimile (303) 974-6659 

Email: thomas.leland@hklaw.com 

 leah.capritta@hklaw.com 

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

Vince Farhat (SBN 183794) 

400 South Hope Street, 8th Floor 

Los Angeles, CA 90071 

Telephone: (213) 896-2400 

Facsimile: (213) 896-2450 

Email: vince.farhat@hklaw.com 

Attorneys for 

TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC. 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION 

 -andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 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 NO. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered) 

 

TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC.’S REPLY 

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 

362(d)(1) 

RELATED DKT. NOS. 4322, 4393, & 4622

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 AM (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Objection 

Deadline: November 8, 2019 

 4:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 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 

#71414098_v2 2 

Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. (“Tiger”) hereby files its Reply in Support of Motion for Relief 

from the Automatic Stay in the above-entitled Chapter 11 case. 

This Reply is based on the Declaration of Leah E. Capritta, Motion to File Certain 

Documents Under Seal, and Declaration of Leah E. Capritta in Support of Motion to File Under 

Seal, all filed contemporaneously herewith. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Debtors’ grossly overstate the extent to which PG&E resources would be implicated 

if the Court lifted the automatic to stay to allow the District Court Case to proceed. While 

Debtors characterize continuing the District Court Case as requiring the full-time contributions 

of their Law, Information Technology, and Customer Care Departments, Debtors’ outside 

counsel has already largely completed the work on the case. Indeed, Debtors’ own expert 

witnesses testified during their depositions that they would require minimal additional 

information or involvement from PG&E moving forward. Unsurprisingly, Debtors attempt to 

downplay both the relative harm to Tiger and the fraudulent conduct at issue in the underlying 

litigation if the case remains stayed. Yet, the hardship to Tiger would be significant. Contrary 

to Debtors’ protests, the time is ripe to allow the case to proceed to trial before the District 

Court, and the Court should grant Tiger the relief sought in its Motion. Because Tiger has 

made a prima facie showing of cause for lifting the stay, the Court should grant Tiger’s Motion 

for Relief from the Automatic Stay so that it may continue to pursue its claims against Debtors 

in the District Court Case. 

II. ARGUMENT 

The Debtors’ Opposition misconstrues the effects of lifting the stay on Debtors’ 

reorganization efforts, drastically overstating the time and resources litigating the District 

Court Case will require, while ignoring the clear hardship to Tiger that the stay will cause. 

A. DEBTORS DRAMATICALLY OVERSTATE THE RESULTING 

HARM IN LIFTING THE AUTOMATIC STAY 

Debtors rely heavily upon the Declaration of Elizabeth Collier, which, “doth protest 

too much,” in support of their claim that lifting the stay will unduly interfere with the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 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 

#71414098_v2 3 

Bankruptcy proceeding. Ms. Collier drastically overstates the resources needed to continue 

litigating the District Court Case. Lifting the stay will not negatively affect the Bankruptcy 

cases, as they claim. First, the District Court Case alleges fraud and tort claims, which do not 

implicate the issues arising in the Bankruptcy cases. See In re Todd Shipyards Corp., 92 B.R. 

600, 303 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988). (“The automatic stay was never intended to preclude a 

determination of tort liability and attendant damages. It was merely intended to prevent a 

prejudicial dissipation of debtor’s assets.”) 

Additionally, Debtors attempt to downplay the advanced stage of the Tiger litigation 

prior to Debtors’ filing of their Petition. In reality, the only outstanding pre-trial phase of the 

litigation remains the conclusion of expert discovery, which the Debtors’ own experts have 

testified will not involve significant involvement from PG&E, if any at all. (Deposition 

Transcript of Dr. Michael Quinn (“Quinn Tr.”) at 51:12–54:14; Deposition Transcript of 

Daniel Ray (“Ray Tr.”) at 32:13–33:10.)1

 During their respective depositions, both experts 

testified that they met with Debtors’ outside counsel early on and would not need additional 

assistance from internal PG&E employees to complete their engagements. (Quinn Tr. at 

14:15–15:22; 51:12–54:14; Ray Tr. at 32:13–35:22.) Debtors mischaracterize the efforts that 

would be expended in continuing the Tiger litigation by attempting to argue that the case 

would somehow need to be re-created should the Court lift the automatic stay, but the District 

Court Case is well on its way to completion. No new depositions will be taken, except for the 

experts, whom by their own admission, will not require significant involvement from Debtors 

moving forward. 

Debtors similarly exaggerate the level of involvement needed from internal PG&E 

personnel to proceed with the District Court Case. In their Opposition, Debtors belabor the 

overextension of the Debtors’ Law, Information Technology, and Customer Care 

Departments. (Opp. at 8–9.) Yet, Debtors engaged the same, highly competent, outside 

 

1

 Tiger is seeking permission to file the relevant excerpts from these transcripts under seal 

pursuant to its Motion to File Certain Documents Under Seal filed contemporaneously herewith. 

These depositions were taken in the legally and factually similar case United Energy Trading, 

LLC v. PG&E, et al., No. 15 Civ. 2383 (RS) (SK), and the parties stipulated that the deposition 

testimony may be used and relied upon in Tiger’s action as though taken therein. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 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 

#71414098_v2 4 

counsel of Steptoe and Johnson LLP to represent their interests in all four of the cases 

involving Core Transport Agents (CTAs). Such outside counsel operate largely independently 

and would alleviate any workload pressures on Debtor’s Law Department. See In re Baleine, 

2015 WL 5979948, at *9 (citing In re Santa Clara Cnty. Fair Ass’n, 180 B.R. 564, 566 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1995)) (litigation costs to a bankruptcy estate do not compel a court to deny 

stay relief). Moreover, even if Debtors needed the input of the Customer Care Department, the 

relevant departments would only include the Third Party Billing Department or the Third 

Party Customer Relations Department, which specifically deal with CTAs and other outside 

energy providers. Neither of these departments work on matters relating to the wildfire claims. 

Because Debtors mischaracterize the harm that lifting the stay would cause, the Court should 

conclude that this factor weighs in favor of Tiger. 

B. IN CONTRAST, THE HARM TO TIGER IS SIGNIFICANT 

i. Tiger Will Be Forced to Litigate the Case in Piecemeal Fashion 

Lifting the stay will allow the District Court Case to proceed in a forum in which complete 

resolution will be obtained. The case involves one defendant, Debtor PG&E Company, and three 

individual defendants, and the District Court maintains jurisdiction over the parties and the claims 

at issue, none of which impact this Court’s areas of focus. The same PG&E attorneys that 

represent the corporate defendant also represent the individuals. If the Court does not grant the 

Motion for Relief from Stay, efforts will be duplicated, by both Debtors and Tiger, in 

litigating the cases in separate fora. See In re Blan, 237 B.R. 737, 738 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 1999) 

(lifting the automatic stay to allow civil suit to proceed to avoid duplication of resources in trying 

defendants separately where bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction over co-defendants and where 

the parties had not yet taken any depositions at the time of the bankruptcy filing). 

ii. Debtors’ Fraud Will Continue 

As discussed in Tiger’s Motion (but all but glossed over in Debtors’ Opposition) 

Tiger’s underlying suit addresses Debtors’ fraudulent and deceptive behavior in acting as 

Tiger’s billing and collection agent. The Complaint alleges that Debtor PG&E engages in three 

schemes involving the CC&B system. Specifically, it alleges claims under RICO, the Sherman 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 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 

#71414098_v2 5 

Act, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with contract, breach 

of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. 

Staying the Tiger Case will only permit Debtors’ fraudulent conduct to continue. See In re 343 

E. 43rd St. Holding Corp., 46 B.R. 562, 562 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985) (granting relief from the 

automatic stay to allow underlying litigation to proceed with discovery where case involved 

allegations of fraudulent conduct by the debtor). Lifting the stay will be particularly important 

given the effects of Debtors’ actions upon Tiger’s customers in Northern California. 

C. JUDICIAL ECONOMY WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF RELIEF FROM 

STAY 

Proceeding with the Tiger Case will conserve resources given the District Court’s 

familiarity with the issues and the advanced stage of the case. See In re Todd Shipyards Corp., 

92 B.R. 600, 604 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1988) (“[I]t will often be more appropriate to permit 

proceedings to continue in their place of origin, when no great prejudice to the bankruptcy 

estate would result, in order to leave the parties to their chosen forum and to relieve the 

bankruptcy court from any duties that may be handled elsewhere.”). 

Addressing Tiger’s claims before the Bankruptcy Court would not further judicial 

economy given the time and resources that would be required to familiarize a new judge with 

the legal and factual issues, as well as the discovery background, of the case. Granting relief 

from the stay would efficiently liquidate Tiger’s claims against all defendants in one forum. 

D. A BALANCING OF THE RELATIVE HARDSHIPS WEIGHS IN 

FAVOR OF GRANTING RELIEF FROM STAY 

The balance of the hardships in favor of granting Tiger relief from the automatic stay. 

Despite their claims to the contrary, Debtors would not experience significant hardship if the 

Court allowed the District Court Case to proceed. Instead, Tiger will suffer significant harm in 

litigating the case in piecemeal fashion or onboarding a new judge to the facts and law of the 

case. In addition, the ongoing nature of PG&E’s fraudulent acts intensifies the hardship to 

Tiger and its Northern California customers. PG&E’s progress before this Court underscores 

the hardship to Tiger and the lack of hardship to PG&E itself. Therefore the Court should 

grant Tiger’s Motion for Relief from Stay and allow the District Court Case to proceed. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 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 

#71414098_v2 6 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, and based upon the evidence set forth in this Reply and Tiger’s 

Motion, the Court should grant relief from the automatic stay to allow Tiger to pursue its claims 

against the Debtor in the District Court Case. 

DATED: November 11, 2019 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

By: /s/ Leah E. Capritta 

 Leah E. Capritta 

 Attorneys for Tiger Natural Gas, Inc.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4661 Filed: 11/11/19 Entered: 11/11/19 16:31:55 Page 6 of

6