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

MATTHEW D. METZGER (SBN 240437)

mmetzger@belvederelegal.com

BELVEDERE LEGAL, PC

1777 Borel Place, Suite 314

San Mateo, CA 94402

Telephone: (415) 513-5980

Facsimile: (415) 513-5985

STUART G. GROSS (SBN 251019)

sgross@grosskleinlaw.com

TIM KLINE (SBN 319227)

tk@grosskleinlaw.com

GROSS & KLEIN LLP

The Embarcadero

Pier 9, Suite 100

San Francisco, CA 94111

t (415) 671-4628

f (415) 480-6688

Attorneys for Creditor,

Dan Clarke

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION

- and -

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

 Debtors.

Bankruptcy Case

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered) 

DECLARATION OF STUART G. 

GROSS IN SUPPORT OF

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE 

AUTOMATIC STAY 

 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).

Date: July 23, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: Hon. Dennis Montali

 450 Golden Gate Avenue

 16th Floor, Courtroom No. 17

 San Francisco, CA 94102

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 1

of 5
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

I, Stuart G. Gross, declare as follows: 

1. I am a partner at Gross & Klein LLP and am counsel for Plaintiff Dan Clarke in the 

matter, San Francisco Herring Association and Dan Clarke vs. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company; PG&E Corporation, United States District Court, Northern District of California Case 

No. 14-cv-04393 WHO (JCS) and this action. I make this declaration in support of the Motion for 

Relief from the Automatic Stay. The matters stated below are made and based upon my personal 

knowledge. If called as a witness, I could and would testify to the matters as set forth below. 

2. On September 30, 2014, Plaintiffs San Francisco Herring Association and Daniel 

Clarke filed the aforementioned complaint in the United States District Court, Northern District of 

California. A true and correct copy of the original complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

3. While the parties pursued settlement discussions pursuant to a Mediated 

Investigation Agreement, the District Court, on August 11, 2015, severed Clarke’s claims that 

related solely to the contamination of his property (the “Known Clarke Property Claims”) from his 

Broader Environmental Claims. Dkt No. 63. A true and correct copy of the District Court’s 

August 11, 2015 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

4. On February 26, 2015, the Court denied PG&E’s motion to dismiss. A true and 

correct copy of the Court’s February 26, 2015 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 3. 

5. On February 27, 2015, the Court set a further settlement conference before 

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. A true and correct copy of the Court’s February 27, 2015 

Notice and Order Setting Further Settlement Conference is attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 

6. On October 1, 2015, the parties entered an interim settlement known as the 

Mediated Investigation Agreement. A true and correct copy of the Mediated Investigation 

Agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 5. 

7. On August 11, 2015, the Court entered an Order severing claims that related 

specifically to Plaintiff Dan Clarke’s home, referred to as the “Known Clarke Property Claims,” 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 2

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

from Plaintiffs’ other environmental claims, referred to as the “Broader Environmental Claims.” A 

true and correct copy of the Court’s August 11, 2015 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 6. 

8. On July 16, 2016, PG&E and Clarke entered into a settlement resolving the Known 

Clarke Property Claims, releasing his damage claims but maintaining all rights to continue to 

prosecute his public nuisance claims. 

9. Later the same year, Clarke sold the Clarke Home to PG&E, following said out-ofcourt settlement. 

10. Clarke’s Broader Environmental Claims were not settled and remained active. 

11. On October 31, 2017, the joint investigation under the Mediated Investigation 

Agreement concluded, but the underlying action remained stayed while the parties attempted 

negotiation a final resolution of Plaintiffs’ Broader Environmental Claims. 

12. In September 2018, Plaintiff San Francisco Herring Association (“SFHA”), on one 

hand, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company and PG&E Corporation (collectively “PG&E”), on 

the other, reached a consent decree. A true and correct copy of the Revised Consent Decree 

Between Plaintiff San Francisco Herring Association and Defendants is attached hereto as Exhibit 

7.

13. On November 8, 2018, the District Court entered a minute order setting a case 

schedule for the expedited resolution of Plaintiff Daniel Clarke’s remaining claims. A true and 

correct copy of the District Court’s Civil Minutes dated November 6, 2018 is attached hereto as 

Exhibit 8. 

14. On November 20, 2018, PG&E moved for summary judgment as to the remaining 

Plaintiff, Mr. Daniel Clarke. Clarke opposed the motion for summary judgment, arguing inter alia

that: i) Clarke’s Broader Environmental Claims for declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and 

penalties sought relief concerning the ongoing marine contamination at issue was in excess of that 

required of PG&E under the Consent Decree; ii) the Consent Decree does not require PG&E to 

take any actions concerning ongoing terrestrial contamination that exists beyond a narrow band of 

the shoreline; and iii) PG&E had come nowhere close to meeting its burden, under Friends of the 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 3

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

Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000), Gwaltney of Smithfield v. 

Chesapeake Bay Found., 484 U.S. 49 (1987), and their progeny, to show that its voluntary actions 

taken under regulatory oversight—but not pursuant to any binding regulatory order—mooted

Clarke’s claims for an enforceable order from the court requiring that PG&E address the 

continuing contamination. Briefing by both sides which totaled approximately 1,000 pages and 

included detailed results of years of environmental investigations. 

15. On January 9, 2019 – less than one month before the February 5, 2019 petition date 

of the PG&E Bankruptcy cases – the District Court heard oral argument and took the matter under 

submission. A true and correct copy of the certified transcript of the January 9, 2019 hearing is 

attached hereto as Exhibit 9. 

16. On January 14, PG&E released a statement indicating its intention to file for 

bankruptcy, and on January 29, 2019, PG&E filed its petition for bankruptcy. 

17. On February 6, 2019, PG&E filed a Notice of Stay in the District Court. 

18. A true and correct copy of the February 11, 2019 Order Administratively Closing 

Case (Docket No. 202) is attached hereto as Exhibit 10. 

19. PG&E has stipulated with certain other individuals whose properties are located in 

the former footprint of the North Beach MGP or Fillmore MGP to continue performing under prepetition environmental agreements PG&E entered into with them. 

20. In accordance with that stipulation, an environmental investigation of one such 

property has been conducted by PG&E, post petition, and the remediation of another property has 

continued. Moreover, further related agreements between PG&E and these and other homeowners 

have been, and are being, negotiated. This work has been performed on behalf of PG&E by 

outside counsel and experts, who are not involved in this bankruptcy action and who have been 

working on these matters for approximately a decade. 

21. Environmental counsel for PG&E has confirmed PG&E’s intention to comply with 

its legal obligations under the Consent Decree and such counsel has taken steps necessary to 

achieve that compliance 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 4

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

22. PG&E has several outside attorneys, and at least one in-house attorney, who have 

worked on legal matters related to the contamination related to the subject MGPs for 

approximately a decade and who continue to work on such matters. These attorneys are separate 

and apart from those handling the Bankruptcy Case for Debtors. PG&E, furthermore, has outside 

and in-house technical staff that have worked on these matters for as long and who continue to do 

so.

23. To the extent that there are similar cases pending against PG&E, pursuant to the 

relief granted by this Court (Dkt. 216), PG&E representatives continue to engage with those 

claimants to resolve their particular claims. 

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct.

Executed July 2, 2019 at San Francisco, California. 

 

 .

 Stuart G. Gross

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2823-1 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 12:56:04 Page 5

of 5