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-

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and -

PACIFIC 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).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case

No. 19-30088-DM

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered

Date: October 23, 2019

Time: 10:00 AM

Place: Courtroom 17

 450 Golden Gate Ave.

 16th Floor

 San Francisco, CA

ORDER DENYING APPLICATION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF TORT 

CLAIMANTS (DKT. NO. 4018) TO CONFIRM THE SCOPE OF EMPLOYMENT OF 

BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP OR AMEND THE ORDER AUTHORIZING RETENTION 

AND EMPLOYMENT (DKT. NO. 1331)

The Official Committee of Tort Claimants (“TCC”) wants to 

expand the authority of its counsel, or reaffirm the extent of 

that authority, to take an active role in the Tubbs fire 

litigation pending in San Francisco Superior Court. For the 

reasons that follow, that motion (Dkt. No. 4018) is DENIED.

Signed and Filed: October 29, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

October 29, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4507 Filed: 10/29/19 Entered: 10/29/19 14:54:50 Page 1 of

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

-2-

When Baker & Hostetler LLP (“Baker”) was employed, the 

boilerplate language utilized included a statement authorizing 

it to represent the TCC before this court “and such other courts 

or tribunals, as appropriate.” The San Francisco Superior Court 

(“SF Superior”) was not mentioned.

When the court considered the motion of the TCC to grant 

relief from stay for specific Tubbs fire victims as plaintiffs 

to proceed, SF Superior was specifically identified but nothing 

was said suggesting that Baker would be involved in that trial. 

In fact, before the motion was heard, state court counsel for 

some plaintiffs joined in the motion. The court clearly 

considered that the motion, having originally been filed by the 

TCC for the benefit of the named plaintiffs, was being pressed 

for them, primarily by those same state court counsel.

The court is concerned that what Baker now wants creates an 

unworkable arrangement. It would either be acting as a 

functional co-counsel with the state court counsel or as their 

ghost writer to deal with bankruptcy issues that do not appear 

to be legally relevant to the state court trial issues. This is 

also notwithstanding the obvious: the outcome of that trial 

likely will have a material impact on the estimation proceedings 

in these cases.

This concern is borne out by the repeated statement by 

Baker that the state court trial involves claims estimation, 

confirmation issues and potential compromises of controversies. 

It includes neither of the first two; the third would be a 

welcome development but does not justify this extraordinary 

relief. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4507 Filed: 10/29/19 Entered: 10/29/19 14:54:50 Page 2 of

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

-3-

Baker assures all that it will not be representing any 

individual plaintiff. The statement, while true, exacerbates 

the confusion its expanded role would play. Will the jurors 

know Baker does not represent the plaintiffs? Will the named 

plaintiffs clearly understand the differences? This court is 

confident that the Superior Court judge will know the 

difference, but who will explain to that judge why estimation 

and confirmation issues even need to be mentioned?

When this court allowed the Tubbs trial to proceed it was 

to facilitate a procedure in the manner it would have proceeded 

absent a bankruptcy. Had the TCC tried to import estimation and 

confirmation issues at that point the decision to grant relief 

from stay might have gone the other way. 

In short, expanding or defining the role of Baker as 

requested in the SF Superior action is not appropriate.

It confuses the issues before that court and this one and will 

not be permitted.

The motion is DENIED. 

**END OF ORDER**

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4507 Filed: 10/29/19 Entered: 10/29/19 14:54:50 Page 3 of

3