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 

#71012689_v3 1 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

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

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

 Debtor. 

)

)

)

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 19-30089 (DM)

Chapter 11 

TIGER NATURAL GAS, INC.’S MOTION 

FOR RELIEF FROM STAY PURSUANT 

TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1); 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 AM 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Ctrm: 17 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 1 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 2 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

Table of Contents 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED ............................................................2 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................2 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6 

V. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8 

A. WHETHER RELIEF WILL RESULT IN COMPLETE RESOLUTION OF THE 

ISSUES .........................................................................................................................8 

B. LACK OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE BANKRUPTCY CASE ...........................9 

C. DEBTOR PG&E IS A FIDUCIARY ...........................................................................9 

D. THE DISTRICT COURT HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE TO 

RESOLVE TIGER’S CLAIMS ..................................................................................10 

E. THE TIGER ACTION INVOLVES THIRD PARTIES AND DEBTOR PG&E IS 

A CONDUIT OF NATURAL GAS ...........................................................................10 

F. THE TIGER LITIGATION WILL NOT PREJUDICE OTHER CREDITORS ........11 

G. JUDICIAL ECONOMY WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF RELIEF FROM STAY ............11 

H. PROGRESS OF LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT CASE .......................12 

I. A BALANCING OF THE RELATIVE HARDSHIPS WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF 

GRANTING RELIEF FROM STAY .........................................................................12 

VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................13 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 2 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 3 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 

Cases Page(s) 

In re Baleine, LP, BK 13-27610 MH, 2015 WL 5979948 

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015)..................................................................... 8, 9, 11, 12 

In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984). ................................................ 8, 9 

In re Kronemyer, 405 B.R. 915 (9th Cir.BAP 2009) ........................................... 7, 8 

In re Plumberex, 311 B.R. 551 (2004) ..................................................................... 8 

In re Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, et al., Case No. 4:16-CV-06711 (JSW) ............................................. 2 

In re Todd Shipyards Corp., 92 B.R. 600 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988) ....................... 9, 12 

In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 

(9th Cir. 1990) ................................................................................................. 6, 7 

Statutes 

11 U.S.C. § 362(d) .................................................................................................... 6 

Bankruptcy Code section 362(a) .............................................................................. 6 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 3 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 2 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

TO THE DEBTOR, THE TRUSTEE AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES OF 

RECORD: 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. (“Tiger”) hereby files this 

Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support 

in the above-entitled Chapter 11 case. 

This Motion is based on the accompanying Declaration of Leah E. Capritta and Request 

for Judicial Notice, the points and authorities set forth below, and on such other and further 

evidence and matters that the Court may consider at the hearing of the Motion. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT the debtor and respondent Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (the “Debtor” or “PG&E”) may appear personally or by counsel at the 

preliminary hearing of this matter. The Debtor will not be required to, but may, file responsive 

pleadings, points and authorities, and declarations for any preliminary hearing. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

 Filed nearly three years ago, Tiger’s Complaint details an on-going combination of 

complex business torts perpetrated by Debtor PG&E, which acts as Tiger’s billing and collections 

agent. Given the District Court’s expertise with the facts and legal issues, acquired over four 

similar cases in the last several years, and the advanced stage of the litigation, Tiger seeks relief 

from the automatic stay so it may liquidate its damages. Given the status of this Bankruptcy 

Action, the time is now ripe to allow the case to proceed to trial before the District Court, and the 

Court should grant Tiger the relief sought in this motion. 

II. STATEMENT OF ISSUE TO BE DETERMINED 

1. Whether the Court should modify or lift the automatic stay to permit Tiger to 

liquidate its claims against Debtor PG&E by advancing the case currently pending in the District 

of Northern California, styled Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al., 

Case No. 4:16-CV-06711 (JSW) (the “District Court Case”). 

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 4 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 3 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

In 1991, California deregulated its retail gas commodity market, giving residential and 

small commercial customers a choice from whom to buy natural gas, referred to as the “Core Gas 

Aggregation Program.” (Declaration of Leah E. Capritta (“Capritta Decl.”), Ex. 1, ¶¶ 25-26.) 

Under this program, non-utility companies, called Core Transport Agents or “CTAs,” deliver 

volumes of gas to PG&E’s Citygate for use by the CTAs’ customers. (Id., ¶ 40.) PG&E then 

delivers the gas to homes and businesses throughout Northern California. (Id., ¶ 28.) 

CTAs must pay PG&E both for storage and transportation of the gas (even if the CTA does 

not use PG&E for these services). (Id., ¶ 40.) Customers also pay PG&E for storage and 

transportation as well as certain franchise fees. (Id.) In addition, PG&E itself continues to sell 

natural gas; that is, it competes with the CTAs. Creditor Tiger is one such CTA, and continues to 

operate in PG&E’s territory, as it has since 2010. (Id., ¶ 29.) 

As a convenience to the consumer, a CTA may elect by right to use Consolidated PG&E 

Billing, and nearly all CTAs exercise this right. (Id., ¶ 34.) With Consolidated Billing, PG&E 

sends one bill (called an “energy statement” or a “blue bill”) to the customer containing PG&E’s 

delivery charges as well as the CTA’s gas commodity charges, all of which are set forth on the 

first page together with a total amount for the customer to pay. (Id., ¶ 33.) The customer makes 

one payment to PG&E, at which point PG&E is supposed to send to the CTA its portion of the 

payment. (Id., ¶ 4.) Aside from providing its rate for the gas to PG&E, the CTA exercises no 

control over the billing or collection process. (Id., ¶¶ 4,34.) 

At all relevant times, PG&E similarly exercised total control over the information provided 

to CTAs about the status of their customer accounts. (Id., ¶ 44.) PG&E generates both a daily 

billing report, showing which customers have been billed and the amount that PG&E billed on the 

CTA’s behalf, and a daily payment report, showing only the amount of money that PG&E elects 

to distribute to the CTA for any customer. (Id., ¶¶ 46-48.) PG&E also disseminates monthly 

snapshot reports collating the information in the daily billing and payment reports and providing 

an aging summary of the debt owed to the CTA. (Id.) 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 5 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 4 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

Finally, PG&E sends a monthly reversal file ostensibly listing accounts “reversed” by 

PG&E. (Id., ¶ 75.) The reversal indicates to the CTA that the customer has been disconnected or 

has moved outside of PG&E’s territory, and the CTA may now initiate its own collection efforts. 

(Id., ¶¶ 77-84.) The reversal terminates the CTA’s business relationship with the customer. (Id.) 

Notably, none of these reports showed the total owed by the customer or paid by the 

customer. (Id., ¶¶ 77-84.) At all times relevant to the District Court Case, PG&E refused to provide 

any other information to the CTAs (including Tiger) about their joint customers. (Id.) 

Debtor PG&E’s billing and collections system, called “CC&B,” serves as the accounting 

system for the blue bills sent to the customers, the payments received from the parties’ joint 

customer, the payments sent to the CTAs, as well as the reports generated for the CTAs. (Id., ¶45.) 

CC&B is a complicated Oracle-based system modified by Debtor PG&E for its services. (Id., ¶¶ 

45-61.) CC&B utilizes a complicated process for generating blue bills and allocating payments 

between Debtor PG&E and CTAs. (Id.) 

On November 18, 2016, Tiger filed a lawsuit against Debtor PG&E in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California in connection with PG&E’s fraudulent and 

deceptive behavior in acting as Tiger’s billing and collection agent. (Capritta Decl. ¶ 2.) The 

Complaint alleges that Debtor PG&E engages in three schemes involving the CC&B system. (Id., 

Ex. 1, ¶¶ 45-89.) The Payment Withholding Scheme alleges that PG&E retains customer payments 

in an unlawful manner that tells, inter alia, that the customer simply has not paid. (Id., ¶¶ 45-61.) 

The Energy Credit Scheme alleges that Debtor PG&E presents energy credits (that PG&E owes 

to the customer) on the blue bills in a manner that informs the customer not to pay (or to partially 

pay) the CTA’s gas charges. (Id., ¶¶ 62-73.) PG&E’s reports to the CTA then lead the CTA to 

believe that the customer is delinquent (when in fact the customer paid in full or made an 

appropriate partial payment). (Id., ¶ 67.) In the Reversal Scheme, PG&E reverses accounts even 

though the customer has paid PG&E or under other unlawful circumstances. (Id., ¶¶ 74-89.) The 

Complaint alleged claims under RICO, the Sherman Act, intentional and negligent 

misrepresentation, intentional interference with contract, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 6 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 5 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

duty and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. (Id., ¶¶ 90-184.) The Complaint 

names three PG&E employees individually as defendants: Albert Torres; William Chen; and 

Tanisha Robinson. (See id., Ex. 1.) Judge Jeffrey S. White presides over the District Court Case. 

(Capritta Decl., ¶3.) 

The District Court Case presents complicated fact patterns over several different divisions 

within Debtor PG&E, a series of complex business torts, and a rubric of procedural and discovery 

wrangling. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 4.) The parties deposed nine individuals (in addition to the 23 

depositions taken in a similar lawsuit initiated by United Energy Trading, LLC) and exchanged 

hundreds of thousands pages of documents. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 5.) In addition, the parties analyzed 

millions of transactions from tens of thousands of accounts from the CC&B system, itself a 

remarkably complex program. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 6.) 

In addition, the District Court presided over several discovery issues involving apparent 

errors and inconsistencies in PG&E’s CC&B system. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 8.) On July 31, 2018, 

Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim ordered PG&E to review a series of pre-selected accounts and provide 

a “person most knowledgeable” to testify regarding the transactions. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 9.) In the 

course of prepping its witness, on September 17, 2018, PG&E acknowledged that “certain 

financial transactions” were missing from all of the CC&B dataset provided by PG&E. (Capritta 

Decl., ¶ 10.) On October 15, 2018, the Court ordered PG&E to permit a forensic expert to examine 

CC&B. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 11.) When PG&E curtailed that examination, the Court again ordered 

two additional days of forensic review, which the parties scheduled to occur on January 28 and 

29, 2019.1 (Capritta Decl., ¶ 12.) While the parties completed the first day, PG&E filed the instant 

petition early in the morning on January 29, 2019, preventing the second day of examination. 

(Capritta Decl., ¶ 13.) As the foregoing shows, the course of discovery before the District Court 

reflects a complicated background. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 14.) 

The interplay between the regulatory environment and the legal framework for many of 

the business torts alleged in the complaint create additional complexity. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 15.) 

 

1

 On January 17, 2019, PG&E moved to stay the examination entirely, which the Court denied. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 7 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 6 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

The California Public Utilities Commission regulates both the CTAs and PG&E and issued 

decisions at various times on which both parties rely for their legal positions. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 

16.) The District Court, accordingly, acquired an expertise in these complicated issues. (Capritta 

Decl., ¶ 17.) 

Except for the foregoing forensic examination, fact discovery closed on December 21, 

2018. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 18.) Expert discovery would have closed on May 6, 2019. (Capritta Decl., 

¶ 19.) Finally, the Court set September 16, 2019, as the first day of trial. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 20.) 

On January 29, 2019, the Debtor filed the instant Chapter 11 Petition as Case No. 19-30088 

(DM). (Dkt. 1.) At the time of this bankruptcy filing, the following matters pended before the 

District Court: 

i. Dispositive motions deadline on June 21, 2019; 

ii Daubert motions deadline on August 2, 2019; 

iii. Parties’ Pre-Trial Conference set for August 19, 2019; 

ii. Motions in Limine; and 

iii. Trial set for September 16, 2019. 

(Capritta Decl., ¶ 21.) 

 On February 27, 2019, the District Court stayed the case in its entirety while PG&E worked 

its way through the reorganization process. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 22.) 

 Given the complex nature of the torts alleged, Tiger’s claims remain unliquidated. 

(Capritta Decl., ¶ 23) Tiger had not yet disclosed the findings of its damages experts; however, 

given the on-going nature of PG&E’s actions, that sum has only increased. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 24.) 

In addition, because PG&E’s actions are both fraudulent and intentional, the possibility of 

exemplary damages and an award of fees and costs exists. (Capritta Decl., ¶ 25.) 

IV. LEGAL STANDARD 

Pursuant to section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy filing imposes an 

automatic stay of all litigation against the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a). However, a creditor may 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 8 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 7 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

move for relief from automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d), which provides that a bankruptcy 

court “shall grant relief from the stay” upon a showing of “cause.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d); In re 

Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990). Specifically, Bankruptcy Code § 

362(d) provides that: 

On request of a party in interest after notice and a hearing, the 

court shall grant relief from the stay provided under subsection 

(a) of this section, such as by terminating, annulling, 

modifying, or conditioning such stay: 

(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of 

an interest in property of such party in interest; or 

(2) with respect to a stay of an act against property under 

subsection (a) of this section if: 

(A) the debtor does not have any equity in such 

property and, 

(B) such property is not necessary to an effective 

reorganization. 

“Cause” has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis. In re Tucson 

Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d at 1166. Granting or denying relief from stay is a matter of the court’s 

discretion and often involves consideration of numerous factors. In re Kronemyer, 405 B.R. 915 

(9th Cir.BAP 2009). Those factors include: 

1. Will relief result in partial or complete resolution of the issues? 

2. Is there a lack of any connection with or interference with the 

bankruptcy case? 

3. Does the foreign proceeding involve the debtor as a fiduciary? 

4. Has a special tribunal been established to hear the particular 

cause of action and does that tribunal have the expertise to hear 

such cases? 

5. Has the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed financial 

responsibility? 

6. Does the action involve third parties and the debtor functions 

only as a bailee or conduit? 

7. Would litigation in the other forum prejudice the interests of 

other creditors, the creditors committee and other parties? 

8. Would the judgment claim arising from the foreign action be 

subject to equitable subordination? 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 9 of

16
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 

#71012689_v3 8 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

9. Would success in the nonbankruptcy forum result in a lien 

avoidable under the bankruptcy code? 

10. Would the interests of judicial economy and expeditious and 

economical determination of litigation be achieved? 

11. Have the foreign proceedings progressed to where the parties 

have prepared for trial? 

12. What is the impact of the stay on the parties and the “balance 

of hurt”? 

The Ninth Circuit has recognized that “the Curtis factors are appropriate, nonexclusive, 

factors to consider in deciding whether to grant relief from the automatic stay to allow pending 

litigation to continue in another forum.” In re Kronemyer, 405 B.R. at 921. While the Curtis

factors are widely used to determine the existence of “cause,” not all of the factors are relevant in 

every case, nor is a court required to give each factor equal weight. In re Plumberex, 311 B.R. 

551, 560 (2004). Accordingly, factors 5, 8, and 9 are not relevant here and will not be discussed. 

According to the court in Curtis, “[t]he most important factor in determining whether to 

grant relief from the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the 

effect of such litigation on the administration of the estate. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have 

granted relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1) when necessary to permit pending litigation to be 

concluded in another forum “if the non-bankruptcy suit involves multiple parties or is ready for 

trial.” In re Baleine, LP, BK 13-27610 MH, 2015 WL 5979948, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) 

(citing Plumberex, 311 B.R. at 556). 

V. ARGUMENT 

Cause exists here to grant Tiger relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(1) so that it 

may continue to pursue its claims against Debtor PG&E in the District Court Case. Upon 

evaluating these factors, they clearly tip heavily in favor of granting relief from the automatic 

stay. 

A. WHETHER RELIEF WILL RESULT IN COMPLETE RESOLUTION 

OF THE ISSUES 

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

resolution will be obtained. The District Court has presided over the District Court Case since 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 10

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 9 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

May 2015. It now involves one defendant—Debtor PG&E— and three individual defendants and 

one plaintiff, and several state-law business torts, and the District Court maintains jurisdiction over 

not only all the parties but the claims at issue, none of which impact this Court’s inquiries about 

the wildfires or PG&E’s restructuring of its debt. Accordingly, the first factor tips in favor of the 

stay. 

B. LACK OF INTERFERENCE WITH THE BANKRUPTCY CASE 

The lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case is “[t]he most 

important factor in determining whether to grant relief from the automatic stay.” In re Curtis, 40 

B.R. 795, 806 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984). Here, lifting the stay will not negatively affect the 

bankruptcy case. The bankruptcy case largely involves the reorganization of PG&E’s debt and, to 

no small extent, the management of its liability for wildfire claims and other liability for personal 

injury and losses. In contrast, the District Court Case alleges tort claims based on Tiger and the 

Debtor’s business relationship and day-to-day dealings, which do not implicate the issues arising 

in the bankruptcy proceeding. 

Further, nothing in the District Court Case will impede the Trustee’s ultimate duty to 

allocate assets among Debtor PG&E’s various creditors. Indeed, the Trustee will maintain the 

ability to liquidate and administer the Debtor’s estate. See In re Baleine, 2015 WL 5979948, at *8. 

“The automatic stay was never intended to preclude a determination of tort liability and 

attendant damages.” In re Todd Shipyards Corp., 92 B.R. 600, 303 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988). “It was 

merely intended to prevent a prejudicial dissipation of debtor’s assets.” Id. 

In addition, litigation costs to a bankruptcy estate do not compel a court to deny stay relief. 

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)). Here, however, the District Court Case is unlikely to cause significant 

additional financial burden on the Debtor, which will need to either litigate Tiger’s claims here or 

in the District Court. Indeed, proceeding before the District Court will likely conserve resources 

given the District Court’s familiarity with the issues and the advanced stage of the case. This factor 

weighs in favor of granting relief from the automatic stay. 

C. DEBTOR PG&E IS A FIDUCIARY 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 11

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 10 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

One of Tiger’s strongest claims against Debtor PG&E involve Debtor PG&E’s status as a 

fiduciary to Tiger. Tiger alleges, and the District Court already found that, Debtor PG&E’s role 

as Tiger’s billing and collections agent constitutes a fiduciary relations. That is, Tiger alleges that 

Debtor PG&E exercises total control over CC&B and yet improperly bills their joint customers, 

improperly retains payments owed to Tiger and provides false information to Tiger about those 

joint customers’ accounts, all in breach of Debtor PG&E’s fiduciary duty. Lifting the stay, then, 

will be particularly important given the effects of Debtor PG&E’s actions upon Debtor PG&E 

and Tiger’s customers in Northern California. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of Tiger. 

D. THE DISTRICT COURT HAS THE EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE 

TO RESOLVE TIGER’S CLAIMS 

Notably, the District Court Case represents one of four similar cases filed by CTAs in the 

Northern District of California against PG&E. While two settled months before Debtor PG&E 

filed this action, another one—United Energy Trading LLC v. PG&E, et al.2—remains in 

litigation. Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim presided over discovery disputes in each of these cases, 

and both Judge Seeborg (who presides over the UET action) and Judge White have rendered 

substantive decisions. Accordingly, although the District Court is not a specialized tribunal, it 

nevertheless acquired a particular expertise with regard to the legal, regulatory and factual issues 

at play in the District Court Case. While bankruptcy courts also have experience applying the law 

of other courts, the amount of time and resources that have already been devoted to the case in the 

District Court puts it in the best position to continue hearing the case. This factor also tips in favor 

of lifting the automatic stay. 

E. THE TIGER ACTION INVOLVES THIRD PARTIES AND DEBTOR 

PG&E IS A CONDUIT OF NATURAL GAS 

As noted above, the District Court Case features three individual defendants, and Tiger’s 

claims against them cannot be adjudicated in this Court. For that reason alone, the Court should 

grant relief from stay. 

 

2

 United Energy Trading moves for relief from stay contemporaneously with this motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 12

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 11 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

In addition, Debtor PG&E acts as an intermediary billing agent between Tiger’s gas 

customers (who also use PG&E’s gas transportation system and are likely PG&E’s electrical 

customers) and Tiger. As result, when a customer pays PG&E, the likely expectation is that PG&E 

will pay to Tiger its portion of the customer’s payment. Similarly, when Debtor PG&E sends the 

customer a bill showing either an amount due or that a payment was made, the natural expectation 

by the customer is that the bill is accurate. However, as alleged in the District Court Case, the 

customer in fact receives inaccurate billing and payment information. The District Court 

Caseinvolves third parties; accordingly, the interest of the public will be served in permitting 

Tiger’s claims to proceed before the District Court. The ramifications of Debtor PG&E’s behavior 

upon customers tilts this factor in favor of lifting the stay. 

F. THE TIGER LITIGATION WILL NOT PREJUDICE OTHER 

CREDITORS 

Allowing Tiger to proceed with its claims will not prejudice creditors of the estate. As 

discussed above, the bankruptcy estate cannot be negatively impacted by lifting the stay in the 

District Court Case nor will other creditors of the bankruptcy estate would be prejudiced by 

granting relief from stay. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of granting relief from stay. 

G. JUDICIAL ECONOMY WEIGHS IN FAVOR OF RELIEF FROM 

STAY 

The conclusion of Tiger’s claims against the Debtor in the District Court Case is in the 

interest of judicial economy because the District Court has been involved with this particular case 

since its filing in November 2016 (and since May 2015, if one includes the UET action).

Courts consider the relative amount of fees in the foreign proceeding as compared to the 

bankruptcy action and the amount of time and resources it would require the bankruptcy court to 

become fully apprised of the issues in the foreign action. In re Baleine, LP, at *11. Here, the 

District Court gained familiarity with all aspects of Tiger’s case (as well as the UET action) 

including the interrelated regulatory and legal issues and the complex discovery background. 

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

economy given the time and resources that would be required to onboard a new judge to become 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 13

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 12 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

familiar with the complex legal and factual issues, as well as the complicated discovery 

background, of the case. Lifting the stay will also prevent the parties from litigating the case in 

piecemeal fashion. See In re Baleine, LP, at *11. Further, at the conclusion of the District Court 

action, the Bankruptcy Court can determine priority issues and how to divide the assets of the 

estate. See In re Baleine, LP, at *11 (affirming that it is “more appropriate” for the non-bankruptcy 

court “to first determine the non-bankruptcy issues, i.e., whether a claim exists and the damages 

therein, if any. After such determination, then the bankruptcy issues become relevant.”) Granting 

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

H. PROGRESS OF LITIGATION IN THE DISTRICT COURT CASE 

Prior to the commencement of Debtor’s Chapter 11 case, the District Court scheduled trial 

to begin on September 16, 2019, Indeed, the District Court developed a particular expertise in the 

technology involved, the legal theories at issue, and the various discovery issues between the 

parties. Accordingly, this factor heavily weighs in favor of granting relief from the automatic 

stay. 

I. A BALANCING OF THE RELATIVE HARDSHIPS WEIGHS IN 

FAVOR OF GRANTING RELIEF FROM STAY 

The balance of the hardships tilts sharply in favor of granting Tiger relief from the 

automatic stay to liquidate their claims in the District Court Case as the litigation has already 

proceeded through fact discovery and to the pre-trial phase. It would be impractical for the 

Bankruptcy Court to address the claims at issue in the District Court Case due to the nature of the 

claims and progress of the case in the District Court. 

While the Debtor may incur litigation expenses, incurrence of litigation expenses does not 

weigh against the liquidation of tort claims in another forum. See In re Todd Shipyard, supra, at 

603. The Debtor would not experience significant hardship in proceeding with the District Court 

Case at this juncture; the hardship, instead, lies with Tiger, who has spent the last three years 

litigating this case to the end of fact discovery only to be stayed by Debtor’s Chapter 11 case. 

The on-going nature of PG&E’s fraudulent acts exacerbate the hardship to Tiger. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 14

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 13 

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY NO. 19-30089 (DM) 

PG&E’s progress before this Court underscores the hardship to Tiger and the lack of 

hardship to PG&E itself. Here, the Court recently ended the exclusivity period to allow certain 

creditors to submit a plan (Dkt. 4167) and denied PG&E’s recent motion to extend its exclusivity 

period (Dkt. 4005). That is, the Court has provided PG&E a full and fair opportunity to assemble 

and propose its plan without distraction from other litigation. Accordingly, the passage of time 

irradiated whatever hardship PG&E may have felt, and now appears to be opportune for 

permitting Tiger relief. 

Therefore the Court should grant Tiger’s Motion for Relief from Stay and allow the 

District Court Case to proceed. 

VI. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, and based upon the evidence set forth in this 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: October 18, 2019 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP 

By: /s/ Leah E. Capritta 

 Leah E. Capritta 

 Attorneys for United Energy Trading, LL

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 15

of 16
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 

#71012689_v3 14 Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4322 Filed: 10/18/19 Entered: 10/18/19 18:29:08 Page 16 MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY of 16