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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 1

CHARLES L. HASTINGS 

CA State Bar No.: 88599

NATALI A. RON

CA State Bar No.: 302927

Law Office of Hastings & Ron

PMB 270, 4719 Quail Lakes Drive, Suite G

Stockton, CA 95207

(209) 476-1010

Attorneys for JACKSON RANCHERIA DEVELOPMENT CORP

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY 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

OPPOSITION TO REORGANIZED 

DEBTORS’ ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH 

OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS – BY

JACKSON RANCHERIA DEVELOPMENT 

CORP (CLAIM NO. 3002)

Date: May 24, 2023

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Location: (Video/Teleconference Only)

U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

Courtroom 17, 16th floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Judge: Honorable Dennis Montali

Creditor, JACKSON RANCHERIA DEVELOPMENT CORP (hereinafter referred to as 

“Jackson”), by and through its undersigned counsel, opposes the Reorganized Debtors’, PG&E 

CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY’S (hereinafter collectively

referred to as the “PG&E”) ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO 

CLAIMS as set forth herein. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Jackson’s claim arises out of fire damage caused by an electrical malfunction of PG&E’s 

power pole and grade transformer which caused a fire to erupt damaging Jackson’s property. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 1

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 2

The fire perimeter was approximately five acres and burned a barn causing it to collapse, 

damaging its contents and other surrounding property, including an adjacent fence, graze land, 

and cattle. The estimated cost to repair the barn is approximately $142,988. The cost to repair 

and/or replace the fence, the cattle, the grazing land, and clean-up costs is $17,525. Jackson’s 

total claim is $160,513.

The fire occurred at 615 New York Ranch Road, in Jackson, California on June 24, 2017. 

The fire was reported at approximately 2:30 PM, alongside New York Ranch Road, along a 

PG&E box/power pole. The fire began burning uphill grasslands, fences, and a barn, which 

ultimately was deemed a complete loss needing full replacement. Jackson Fire Department was 

dispatched to contain the fire, and issued a full automatic aid wildland response, including air 

and ground units from California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (“Cal Fire”), 

Amador Fire Protection District, and the City of Ione Fire Department. 

Cal Fire determined the ignition source of the fire to be faulty equipment and equipment 

malfunction, tracing burn indicators back to a PG&E power pole with a below grade transformer 

at its base. Cal Fire ruled out any other indication of the source of the fire, and ultimately 

unequivocally determined PG&E’s faulty equipment to be the source of the fire and resulting 

damage.

According to the Reorganized Debtors’ objection to claims, this particular Proof of Claim 

3002 has been identified as a claim of which the Reorganized Debtors “conducted a thorough 

review and concluded that there was no basis for liability” based on “analysis of the

[Reorganized Debtors’] books and records and any information submitted in connection with the 

Proofs of Claim, and investigation of the facts alleged by claimant.” However, as set forth 

herein, the Reorganized Debtors have clear liability for the aforementioned claim, and the 

Reorganized Debtor raises no “facts tending to defeat the claim by prohibitive force equal to that 

of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves,” (Wright v. Holm (In re Holm) 931 F.2d 

620, 623), as it acknowledges it is required to do. (See Objection at p. 7:5-7.) In fact, it fails to 

identify any specific analysis of what it did to investigate this claim, nor any facts at all as it 

relates to this claim, let alone facts with probative value of equal force to those facts set forth in 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 2

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 3

the claim, which would be sufficient to shift the burden to Jackson to require it to prove its claim 

by a preponderance of the evidence. (See Ashford v. Consolidated Pioneer Mortgage (In re 

Consolidated Pioneer Mortgage), (1995) 178 B.R. 222, 226.) As such, the Bankruptcy Court 

should not sustain the Omnibus Objection as it relates to Jackson’s Claim No. 3002.

II. LEGAL ARGUMENT

A. PG&E’S NEGLIGENCE DIRETCLY AND PROXIMATELY CAUSED 

JACKSON’S PROPERTY DAMAGE

PG&E installed, owned, operated, used, controlled, and/or maintained power lines and 

other electrical equipment for the public delivery of electricity, including power lines in and 

around the location of the Camp Fire. On June 24, 2017, as a direct, necessary, and legal result of 

PG&E’s negligent management and maintenance of the power lines and electrical equipment, the 

power line/electrical equipment caused a wildfire that burned approximately five acres of 

property, including property Jackson owned or occupied, and damaged and destroyed its real and 

personal property. Jackson has suffered damages, including loss of use, interference with access, 

and/or diminution in value and/or marketability in its property, in the amount of not less than 

$160,513. California Civil Code section 1714 imposes responsibility on every person for “injury 

occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her 

property or person...” (Civ. Code, § 1714.) Gas and electric companies are held to a higher 

standard and degree of care as a result of the inherent nature and danger of the industries. 

“When a duty exists to inspect and maintain property in a safe condition, the presence of a 

conspicuous defect or dangerous condition of the appliances which has existed for a considerable 

length of time will create a presumption of constructive notice thereof.” (Roberts v. Pacific Gas 

& Electric Co. (1929) 102 Cal.App. 422, 428 (citing cases.) The Third District Court of Appeal 

went on “[t]he duty of an electric company in conducting its business of handling and selling this 

dangerous commodity is stated in 9 Ruling Case Law 1927, as follows: ¶ ‘It is well settled that it 

is the imperative duty of such a company not only to install proper appliances, but also to make 

reasonable and proper inspection of such appliances, and to use due diligence to discover and 

repair defects therein, and a failure to do so constitutes negligence. Notice of a defect, in order to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 3

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 4

charge the company with liability therefor, need not be direct and express; it is enough that the 

defect has existed for such a length of time that it should have been known.’” (Id. at 431.)

The California Supreme Court has further held that “[o]n the subject of negligence the 

standard of care is, that one maintaining wires carrying electricity is required to exercise the care 

that a person of ordinary prudence would exercise under the circumstances. Among the 

circumstances are the well known dangerous character of electricity and the inherent risk of 

injury to persons or property if it escapes. Hence, the care used must be commensurate with and 

proportionate to that danger.” (Dunn v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (1954) 43 Cal.2d 265, 273 

citing Polk v. City of Los Angeles (1945), 25 Cal.2d 519, 525, internal quotations and citations 

omitted.) PG&E has a clear obligation to exercise great care to prevent against the precise 

damage caused in this instance, among other damage which could have been caused, by its 

failure to maintain its power pole and electrical box in a safe and operable condition. 

B. PG&E IS LIABLE FOR VIOLATIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITIES CODE 

PG&E is further liable under the California Public Utilities Code. Specifically, Public 

Utilities Code section 451 provides in part “[e]very public utility shall furnish and maintain such 

adequate, efficient, just, and reasonable service, instrumentalities, equipment, and facilities, 

including telephone facilities, as defined in Section 54.1 of the Civil Code, as are necessary to 

promote the safety, health, comfort, and convenience of its patrons, employees, and the public.” 

(Pub. Util. Code, § 451.) Furthermore, “Any public utility which does, causes to be done, or 

permits any act, matter, or thing prohibited or declared unlawful, or which omits to do any act, 

matter, or thing required to be done, either by the Constitution, any law of this State, or any order 

or decision of the commission, shall be liable to the persons or corporations affected thereby for 

all loss, damages, or injury caused thereby or resulting therefrom. If the court finds that the act or 

omission was willful, it may, in addition to the actual damages, award exemplary damages. An 

action to recover for such loss, damage, or injury may be brought in any court of competent 

jurisdiction by any corporation or person.” (Pub. Util. Code, § 2106.) AS can be seen from 

PG&E’s conduct, it clearly failed to maintain its equipment in good repair, and its failure to do 

so was the cause of the fire to approximately five acres of Jackson’s property. As such, PG&E is 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 4

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 5

liable under the Public Utilities Code for Jackson’s damages. 

C. LIABILITY UNDER THEORY OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION 

PG&E is also liable to Jackson under the legal theory of inverse condemnation. An 

inverse condemnation action is an eminent domain action initiated by one whose property was 

taken for public use. (Barham v. Southern Cal. Edison Co. (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 744, 752.) The 

authority for such an action “derives from article I, section 19 of the California Constitution, 

which states in relevant part: ‘Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only . . . 

when just compensation . . . has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner.’” (Pacific Bell 

Telephone Co. v. Southern California Edison Co. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404.) The 

policy underlying inverse condemnation is to spread among the community (through the public 

entity’s taxing authority) any burden disproportionately borne by an individual member of the 

community whose property is taken for a public use. (Barham, at p. 752.) In the case of Barham 

v. Southern California Edison (supra), the court followed Gay Law Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. 

& Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, in holding that a public utility is a state actor and is, in many 

respects, more akin to a governmental entity than to a purely private employer. “The nature of 

the California regulatory scheme demonstrates that the state generally expects a public utility to 

conduct its affairs more like a governmental entity than like a private corporation.” (Gay Law 

Students Assn. v. Pacific Tel. & Tel. Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 458, 469.) As such, the Barham court 

reasoned that there is no significant difference between a privately owned utility and a public 

utility, the likes of which had been held liable in inverse condemnation under virtually identical 

facts in Marshall v. Department of Water & Power (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1124 and Aetna Life 

& Casualty Co. v. City of Los Angeles (1985) 170 Cal.App.3d 865. (See also Pacific Bell. v. 

Southern California Edison Co. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1400, 1404.)

The Barham court distinguished the prior case of Cantu v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. 

(1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 160, in which the court held that inverse condemnation did not apply 

because the improvement, in that case an electrical distribution line, did not serve a public 

purpose. In that case, the line served only a 16-unit subdivision. (Cantu v. Pacific Gas & Electric 

Co. (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 160, 164 [The court concluded the use was “unlike the construction 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 5

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 6

of permanent transmission towers or power lines, which are designed to transmit electricity over 

a much greater area.”].) The fundamental justification for inverse liability is that the 

government, acting in furtherance of public objectives, is taking a calculated risk that private 

property may be damaged.” (Arreola v. County of Monterey (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 722, 742, 

citing Yee v. Sausalito (1983) 141 Cal.App.3d 917, 920.) Inverse condemnation is a strictliability cause of action. The entity did not have to act negligently or violate regulations to be 

held liable for the damage to property. Neither foreseeability nor fault need be shown. “[A] 

public entity may be liable in an inverse condemnation action for any physical injury to real 

property proximately caused by a public improvement as deliberately designed and constructed, 

whether or not that injury was foreseeable, and in the absence of fault by the public entity.” 

(Souza v. Silver Development Co. (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 165, 170; CSAA v. City of Palo 

Alto (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 474 [Liability may attach for any physical injury to real property 

caused by a deliberately designed and constructed improvement even if there is no negligence on 

the entity’s part and the injury was not foreseeable.].) Under this legal theory, as well, PG&E is 

liable, and must reimburse Jackson for damage to its property. 

D. PG&E IS FURTHER LIABLE PURSUANT TO VIOLATIONS OF THE HEALTH 

& SAFETY CODE 

The California Health & Safety Code protects against, and provides liability for, conduct 

of one who negligently allows fire to be set to another’s property. Specifically “[a]ny person 

who personally or through another willfully, negligently, or in violation of law, sets fire to, 

allows fire to be set to, or allows a fire kindled or attended by him to escape to, the property of 

another, whether privately or publicly owned, is liable to the owner of such property for any 

damages to the property caused by the fire.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 13007.) The law clearly 

provides for instances such as the one at bar, and attributes liability for negligently maintaining 

property and allowing or causing fire to be set to another’s property, causing damage as a result. 

As was determined by Cal Fire, and others charged with investigating the cause of the fire, it was 

a result of PG&E’s fault equipment which clearly means PG&E negligently maintained and 

therefor, set fire to Jackson’s property. It must be held liable for, and pay damages to, Jackson as 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 6

of 7
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

OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM 3002 7

a result. 

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, PG&E’s liability is clear and inescapable, and as a result, 

Jackson’s claim should be allowed, and PG&E’s objection to Claim 3002 should be overruled. 

 

Dated: May 18, 2023 LAW OFFICE OF

HASTINGS & RON

 BY: /s/Natali A. Ron ___________________ NATALI A. RON Attorney for JACKSON 

RANCHERIA DEVELOPMENT CORP

NOTICE ADDRESS: (As captioned)

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13753 Filed: 05/18/23 Entered: 05/18/23 17:55:57 Page 7

of 7