1

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

Gerald Singleton, SBN 208783 Electronically Filed

John C. Lemon, SBN 175847

SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

450 A Street, 5th Floor

San Diego, CA 92101

Tel: (619) 771-3473

Fax: (619) 255-1515

Email: gerald@slffirm.com

john@slffirm.com

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

and

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY

Debtors

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered)

Objections by the Singleton Law Firm Fire 

Victim Claimants to: (1) the proof-of-claim 

form proposed by the Tort Claimants 

Committee (including a proposed alternative 

form); and (2) the wildfire-claim cut-off dates

proposed by PG&E and the TCC

Date: June 11, 2019

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

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Hon. Dennis Montali

Opposition Deadline: June 19, 2019

TO: ALL COUNSEL AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD

The Singleton Law Firm Fire Victim Claimants (“SLF Claimants”) hereby submit the 

following objections to the proposed Proof of Claim Form submitted by the Official Committee of 

Tort Claimants (TCC) and to the proposed deadlines for submitting proofs of claims for fire claims

proposed by PG&E and the TCC. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2658 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 16:11:51 Page 1 of

5
2

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.

The only disputes remaining between the two proposed claim forms are the SLF Claimants’ 

request that claimants (1) indicate whether they were harmed by the Tubbs Fire, and (2) be 

permitted to state an amount of damages

Since the initial filings on this subject, PG&E has withdrawn its proposed Wildfire Claimant 

Proof of Claim Form and has agreed to use the form proposed by the TCC. (Doc# 2604, pp. 2-3.) In 

addition, the TCC has modified its proposed form to permit multiple claimants from the same 

property (e.g., husbands and wives, etc.) to file a single claim form. (See Document Nos. 2604 and 

2604-1.) Accordingly, the only two issues that remain are the SLF Claimants’ request that the TCC’s 

form be modified to (1) require wildfire claimants to indicate whether they were affected by the 

Tubbs Fire (as opposed to simply stating that they were harmed by the 2017 North Bay Fires), and (2) 

permit those wildfire victims who wish to do so to provide an amount of their claim.1

A. Identifying Tubbs Fire claimants will involve minimal effort and will benefit both the 

debtors and the creditors 

The SLF Claimants’ proposed modifications of the TCC’s proof of claim form are minor. 

Section 5 of the TCC’s claim form lists the following 5 categories: Camp Fire (2018); North Bay 

Fires (2017); Ghost Ship Fire (2016); Butte Fire (2015); and Other, with a section for an explanation 

as to the nature of the injury causing event. (Doc# 2604-1, p. 6.) The SLF Claimants seek to modify 

one aspect of this section (section 4 in the SLF Claimants’ proposed form), to add a line below 

“North Bay Fires (2017)” that reads: “[ ] Tubbs Fire [ ] Other 2017 North Bay Fire”. (Doc# 2248, 

p. 8.) Filling out this single additional line is not unduly burdensome.

It is important for the parties to know whether a claimant was harmed by the Tubbs Fire 

because, in light of Cal Fire’s report stating that PG&E’s equipment was not responsible for causing 

the Tubbs Fire, it is likely that PG&E will try to contest liability for starting Tubbs. The SLF 

Claimants believe that PG&E’s equipment caused the Tubbs Fire and that, if and when this issue is 

 

1 The SLF Claimants consist of approximately 4,800 wildfire victim claimants from the 2015, 2017, and 2018 fires 

who are represented by the Singleton Law Firm and other attorneys. Because the firms involved in each joint venture are 

different, these claimants are jointly referred to as the “SLF Claimants”.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2658 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 16:11:51 Page 2 of

5
3

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

litigated, a trier of fact will conclude that PG&E was responsible. However, since the Tubbs Fire was 

extremely large (estimates for the overall damages range from $5-10 billion), any attempt to 

determine PG&E’s overall liabilities for the wildfire damages subject to this bankruptcy must take 

Tubbs into account. If PG&E is going to contest liability in Tubbs, it will be very helpful for the 

parties to know the precise number of claims that will be affected. 

In response, the TCC asserts, “The TCC’s form requires Fire Claimants to identify the year of 

the fire giving rise to the Fire Claim and provide the location of loss. This information can be used to 

identify each Fire Claim arising out of the Tubbs Fire.” (Doc# 2604, p. 4:4-6.) 

Respectfully, this is incorrect. The TCC’s form merely requires the claimant to state whether 

he or she was harmed by the 2017 North Bay Fires, which could include any of 19 separate fires. By 

adding the single additional line requested by the SLF Claimants, the parties can obtain this important 

information with minimal additional effort.

Accordingly, since this information is important for the parties to know, and since it can easily 

be obtained, the Court should adopt the SLF Claimants’ proposed form and require those claimants 

affected by the Tubbs Fire to state this fact in their proof of claim.

B. Those claimants who wish to provide their claim amount on the streamlines “wildfire 

specific” proof of claim form should be permitted to do so

In their response, the TCC provides no reason as to why the wildfire specific claim form 

should not be modified to permit those individuals who know their claim amount to state it in their 

proof of claim form. Instead, the TCC merely points out that (1) many claimants will have noneconomic damages, (2) expert testimony is used to determine damages for property losses, and (3) 

any claimant who wishes to do so may use Official Form 410.

While these statements are factually correct, they miss the point.

The purpose of using a specialized “wildfire claim” form is to streamline the process and 

provide additional information to the parties. A claimant should not have to chose between listing the 

amount of his/her damages (which, as PG&E has repeatedly stated, assists PG&E in evaluating its 

total liabilities and therefore leads to quicker resolution of the case) and using a streamlined form that 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2658 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 16:11:51 Page 3 of

5
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

allows multiple claimants whose damages stem from the same property to file a single claim form. 

This is neither efficient nor logical.

While some plaintiffs may not know the amount of their economic, or non-economic, 

damages at the time they file their proof of claim, many do. Counsel for the SLF Claimants have had 

damages experts evaluating their clients’ losses since the fires occurred. In many cases, our experts 

have already provided their reports regarding the specific amount of damages sustained by a 

particular claimant. There is no logical reason why those claimants who know their damages should 

not be permitted to simply list the total amount on their proof of claim form. This is much more 

efficient than requiring them to use Official Form 410, which would lead to numerous inefficiencies 

by, inter alia, requiring a husband and wife who jointly own a property each to list the full amount of 

their property losses on separate forms. It would be more efficient, and provide PG&E and the 

claimants with more accurate information, if these two spouses were allowed to jointly file a 

“wildfire specific” claim that simply lists the amount of their joint loss.

Finally, contrary to the TCC’s assertion, the SLF Claimants’ proposed form does not “ask Fire 

Claimants to guess at the total amount of their Fire Claims as a condition to filing a proof of claim.” 

(Doc# 2604, p. 4:10-11.) Rather, the SLF Claimant’s proposed form offers claimants a choice: they 

can either (1) check the box stating that the claim is “To be determined in an amount according to 

proof” (which is the same choice contained the TCC’s proposed form) (Doc# 2604-1, p. 7), or (2) list 

an amount that “Creditor(s) will accept ... to resolve his/her/their claim”. (Doc# 2248, p. 9.) 

Thus, the SLF Claimants’ proposed proof of claim form allows for providing the maximum 

amount of information without forcing any claimant to guess at the amount of his/her claim or 

prejudicing any claimant who does not know this amount. Accordingly, the Court should adopt this 

modification as well.

II.

The Court should set the claims filing deadline for November 8, 2019

In their filings, PG&E proposed a tort-claim deadline of September 16, 2019. The TCC has 

proposed a deadline in January 2020. The SLF Claimants submit that establishing a claims-filing 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2658 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 16:11:51 Page 4 of

5
5

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

deadline of November 8, 2019 (one year from the date of the Camp Fire) is the best way to achieve 

the necessary balance of providing sufficient notice while still moving the case along as quickly as 

possible. 

The purpose of a claim-filing deadline (or bar date) is obviously to balance the rights of 

creditors against the debtor’s need to identify the universe of claims against it. Here, the SLF 

Claimants propose November 8, 2019 – one full year since the fire – as a workable deadline that is 

both easy to remember and disseminate in the community (i.e., “If your house burned down in the 

Camp Fire and you want to sue PG&E, you have one year from the date of the fire to file a proof of 

claim in the bankruptcy court.”).

III.

Conclusion

The SLF Claimants respectfully request that this Court approve their modified proof-of-claim 

form so that they may provide PG&E with the “critical information” it needs immediately. They also 

request a bar date for filing claims of November 8, 2019.

Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 19, 2019 SINGLETON LAW FIRM, APC

By: /s/ Gerald Singleton

Gerald Singleton

John C. Lemon

Attorneys for the Singleton Law 

Firm Fire Victim Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2658 Filed: 06/19/19 Entered: 06/19/19 16:11:51 Page 5 of

5