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

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & 

HECHT LLP 

John M. Pierce (SBN 250443)

jpierce@piercebainbridge.com

Thomas D. Warren (SBN 160921)

twarren@piercebainbridge.com

355 South Grand Avenue, 44th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90071

(213) 262-9333

LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP

Michael I. Gottfried (SBN 146689)

mgottfried@lgbfirm.com

Roye Zur (SBN 273875)

rzur@lgbfirm.com

1880 Century Park East, Suite 1101

Los Angeles, California 90067

Tel: (310) 557-0050

Fax: (310) 557-0056

Attorneys for the Herndon Parties

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

Case No. 19-30088 (Jointly Administered)

Chapter 11

OBJECTION TO DEBTORS’ MOTION 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) AND 

502(c) FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF 

WILDFIRE CLAIMS ESTIMATION 

PROCEDURES

Hearing Date and Time:

Date: August 14, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific Time)

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave., 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA 94102

Affects:

PG&E Corporation

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Both Debtors

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3437 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:14:01 Page 1 of

4
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

David Herndon, Julia Herndon, Gabriell Herndon, Jedidiah Herndon, Estefania Miranda, 

Steven Jones, Gabriella’s Eatery, Chico Rent-a-Fence, and Ponderosa Pest & Weed Control (the 

“Herndon Parties”) respectfully submit this response to the Debtors’ Motion Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 

§§ 105(a) and 502(c) for the Establishment of Wildfire Claims Estimation Procedures (the 

“Motion”) brought by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (collectively the 

“Debtors”), and in support thereof, represent as follows:

The Herndon Parties anticipate that the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “Tort 

Committee”) likely will address various issues raised by the Motion, including: 1) the Debtors’ 

skewed framing of the issue of inverse condemnation; 2) the propriety of resolving liability for the 

Tubbs Fire in this Court; and 3) the expedited schedule that does not allow sufficient time to 

determine the Debtors’ liability under theories other than inverse condemnation. While the Herndon 

Parties are not addressing those issues herein, the Herndon Parties reserve the right to join in the 

objection of the Tort Committee, and the Herndon Parties anticipate that they will do so. 

In addition to the above-referenced issues, the Herndon Parties’ primary concern is that the 

estimation procedures do not provide for or acknowledge the possibility that this Court will 

authorize the filing of class proofs of claim. As this Court is aware, the Herndon Parties previously 

objected to the Debtors’ proposed order setting a bar date on the basis that it appeared to preclude 

the possibility of class claims. At the hearing on the bar date motion, Debtors’ counsel assured this 

Court that the proposed bar date order “does not pre-judge whether or not a class proof of claim can 

be filed.” Id. at 102:1-2. This Court agreed that the issue of the propriety of class proofs of claim 

for wildfire creditors is “an open question.” Id. at 104:9-16. To date, no party has filed a motion 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9014 to seek permission to file class proofs of 

claim, and the issue remains “an open question.” However, the Herndon Parties reserve the right to 

do so, and if such motion is approved, the estimation procedures will need to provide for estimation

of such claims.

The Motion requires that the third phase of the estimation proceedings – the damages 

estimation phase – begin “after the October 21, 2019, Bar Date so that all stakeholders would have 

knowledge of the number of claimants and the aggregate amount of alleged claims in these 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3437 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:14:01 Page 2 of

4
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

proceedings.” Mot. at 7. Because “liquidating each of the tens of thousands of individual claims 

one by one during the course of these Chapter 11 Cases would be impossible without undermining 

the objective of paying victims promptly and fairly,” id. at 3, “the aggregate estimate of overall 

damages” will be “based upon sampling of claims and expert testimony.” Id. at 8. The Herndon 

Parties do not object to estimation, for at least certain purposes. However, such estimation should 

include the claims of absent class members that are covered by a class proof of claim.

The use of an estimation procedure is appropriate for class proofs of claim. Any concern 

that “allowing class proofs of claim will lead to inexpeditious resolution of claims . . . is not wellfounded.” In re Charter Co., 876 F.2d 866, 872 (11th Cir. 1989). See also In re Chateaugay Corp., 

104 B.R. 626, 633 (S.D.N.Y. 1989) (finding that “there is no reason to think that permitting the filing 

of class claims will cause special delay or uncertainty in settling the debtor's estate”). “The 

bankruptcy courts are well used to the estimation procedures outside the class action context, even 

in highly complex cases,” and “[t]here is no reason to expect that the experience of the bankruptcy 

courts would be different when dealing with class claims.” In re Charter, 876 F.2d at 872-73. 

“[B]ankruptcy courts are experienced in” the “expeditious estimation of unliquidated contingent 

claims such as the class claims made in the case at hand.” In re Chateaugay, 104 B.R. at 633. 

Accordingly, the use of an estimation proceeding is appropriate for class proofs of claim here. See, 

e.g., In re Hoffinger Indus., Inc., 307 B.R. 112, 121 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2004) (finding that “it is 

appropriate to estimate this class for purposes of plan voting and determining feasibility”).

Accordingly, the Herndon Parties respectfully request that this Court sustain the objections 

of the TCC, clarify that any proposed claims estimation procedures explicitly allow for the 

estimation of class proofs of claim if such class proofs of claim are ultimately allowed, and grant 

such further relief as this Court deems proper.

[Signatures to Follow]

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3437 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:14:01 Page 3 of

4
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

Dated: August 7, 2019

 Los Angeles, CA

/s/ Thomas D. Warren

Thomas D. Warren

PIERCE BAINBRIDGE BECK PRICE & HECHT LLP

John M. Pierce (SBN 250443) 

jpierce@piercebainbridge.com

Thomas D. Warren (SBN 160921)

twarren@piercebainbridge.com

Carolynn K. Beck (SBN 264703)

cbeck@piercebainbridge.com

Janine Cohen (SBN 203881)

jcohen@piercebainbridge.com

355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4400 

Los Angeles, California 90071 

(213) 262-9333 

Deborah Renner (pro hac requested)

drenner@piercebainbridge.com

Claiborne Hane (pro hac requested)

chane@piercebainbridge.com

Michael Eggenberger (pro hac requested)

meggenberger@piercebainbridge.com

20 West 23rd Street, Fifth Floor

New York, New York 10010

(212) 484-9866

-and-

/s/ Michael I. Gottfried

Michael I. Gottfried

LANDAU GOTTFRIED & BERGER LLP

Michael Gottfried (SBN 146689)

mgottfried@lgbfirm.com

Roye Zur (SBN 273875)

rzur@lgbfirm.com

1880 Century Park East, Suite 1101

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(310) 557-0050

Attorneys for the Herndon Parties

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3437 Filed: 08/07/19 Entered: 08/07/19 16:14:01 Page 4 of

4