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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Tig WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com)| 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

Attorneys for Debtors 

and Debtors in Possession 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Peter J. Benvenutti (#60566) 

(pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

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).

 Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

DEBTORS’ PRELIMINARY 

OPPOSITION TO TIGER NATURAL 

GAS, INC.’S MOTION FOR RELIEF 

FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) 

Relates to Dkt. Nos. 4322, 4393 

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 1 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ...................................................................................3

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................4

III. ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................4

A. The Relevant Curtis Factors Dictate that the Court Should Deny the Motion ..5

1. The “Balance of Hurt” Tilts Entirely Toward the Debtors ....................5

a. Litigation of the Tiger Action at This Time Risks Significant 

Harm to the Debtors’ Reorganization Efforts ............................6

b. Denying the Motion Will Not Prejudice Tiger ........................10

2. The Parties Are Not “Prepared for Trial” ............................................11

3. Tiger’s Claims Are Not Covered by Insurance....................................12

B. The Curtis Factors Relied Upon by Tiger Are Unavailing ..............................12

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 2 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Cases Page(s) 

In re Am. Spectrum Realty, Inc., 540 B.R. 730 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015) ..........................................9 

In re Bailey, 11 BR. 199 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1981) ......................................................................10, 11 

In re Baleine, LP, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140145 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) ..................................9

Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162 (9th Cir. 1990) .....2 

In re Columbia Ribbon & Carbon Mfg. Co., 13 B.R. 276 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981) ..................11, 12 

Dampier v. Credit Invs., Inc. (In re Dampier), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3800 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Nov. 5, 

2015) ..............................................................................................................................................9 

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

Kronemyer v. Am. Contrs. Indem. Co. (In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) .....3 

In re Landmark Fence Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150928 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2011) .....................4 

Myles v. Xinergy, Ltd. (In re Xinergy Ltd.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 1908 (Bankr. W.D. Va. June 11, 

2015) ............................................................................................................................................10 

In re Plumberex Specialties Prods., Inc., 311 B.R. 551 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004) .........................2, 9 

In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................................9 

In re Smith, 389 B.R. 902 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2008) ..............................................................................8 

In re Sunland, Inc., 508 B.R. 739 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2014) ...............................................................10 

Statutes & Rules 

11 U.S.C. § 362(d) .............................................................................................................................2 

Other Authorities 

3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.10 (2019) .........................................................................................2 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 3 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the “Utility”), as a debtor and debtor in possession along 

with PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”, together with the Utility, the “Debtors”) in the abovecaptioned Chapter 11 Cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”), respectfully submits this opposition (the 

“Opposition”) to the Motion for Relief from Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (Dkt. No. 4322) 

filed by Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. (“Tiger”). Tiger seeks relief from the automatic stay pursuant to 

section 362(d) of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) to prosecute its claims 

in the case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the 

“District Court”), Tiger Natural Gas, Inc. v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al., Case No. 

4:16-CV-06711 (JSW) (the “Tiger Action”). In support of the Opposition, the Utility submits the 

Declaration of Elizabeth Collier (the “Collier Decl.”), filed contemporaneously herewith. 

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

 Tiger seeks relief from the automatic stay to liquidate—right now—liability on and the dollar 

amount of what are, by its own repeated admission, highly complex business tort claims. Tiger has 

not met its burden to make a prima facie showing that cause exists for such relief. To the contrary, 

allowing the Tiger Action to proceed at this time would unduly burden the Debtors’ relevant 

personnel, who are already at capacity attempting to resolve the wildfire claims, mitigate the risks 

of the 2019 wildfire season and address any wildfires that have already occurred, and work toward 

the approval, both by their regulators and the Court, of a viable reorganization plan. Any 

unnecessary diversion of the Debtors’ personnel from these crucial issues risks hindering the 

Debtors’ ability to successfully emerge from these Chapter 11 Cases, continue to service their 

millions of customers, and pay all creditors, including Tiger, any amounts they are owed. 

 On the other hand, maintaining the stay, a status quo that Tiger now submits without support 

would somehow cause it harm despite having sustained none in the over nine months since these 

Chapter 11 Cases began, would not in any way prejudice Tiger. At the March 27, 2019 hearing in 

PG&E Corporation, et al. v. Public Employees Retirement Association of New Mexico, et al. (Adv. 

Proc. No. 19-03006) (the “March 27 Hearing”), the Court remarked as follows with respect to a 

potential Tiger motion for relief from stay: “I will say, I probably would not grant relief from stay 

unless there’s some important, significant reason, not -- I mean, this is a corporation. It’s a 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 4 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

business.” Transcript at 25:3-6. Counsel for Tiger responded to the Court succinctly: “Okay. 

Message Received.” Id. at 25:9. Apparently, however, Tiger in fact did not receive the Court’s 

message. Rather, instead of waiting alongside the thousands of individual wildfire victims who are 

also seeking to recover from the Debtors’ estates, and whose claims the Debtors are currently 

addressing in multiple fora, Tiger filed its Motion in an effort to liquidate its monetary claims despite 

no pressing need to do so now. 

 For these reasons and others, and as more fully set forth below, the Debtors respectfully 

request that the Court deny the Motion. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 Tiger filed the Tiger Action on November 18, 2016. Its complaint alleges claims under RICO, 

the Sherman Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law, as well as causes of action under 

California State law for intentional and negligent misrepresentation, intentional interference with 

contract, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty against the Utility and three individual 

Utility employees relating to the Debtors’ billing practices. The Debtors and the Individual 

Defendants filed their answer, denying all allegations, on November 8, 2017 (District Court Dkt. 

No. 54). 

 The Debtors filed these Chapter 11 Cases on January 29, 2019 (the “Petition Date”). On 

February 4, 2019, the Debtors filed a Notice of Bankruptcy Proceeding (District Court Dkt. No. 123) 

in the Tiger Action based on these Chapter 11 Cases. On February 27, 2019, the District Court 

entered the Order Staying Case and Requiring Joint Status Reports (District Court Dkt. No. 123), 

staying the case as to both the Utility and the Individual Defendants. 

III. ARGUMENT 

 Section 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to modify or terminate the 

automatic stay for “cause,” which “has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case 

basis.” Christensen v. Tucson Estates, Inc. (In re Tucson Estates, Inc.), 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th 

Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). The party requesting stay relief bears the burden of making a prima 

facie showing of cause under section 362(d)(1). See In re Plumberex Specialties Prods., Inc., 311 

B.R. 551, 553 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2004); 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.10 (2019) (“Failure to prove 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 5 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

a prima facie case requires denial of the requested relief.”). In determining whether cause exists to 

permit an action to proceed in a non-bankruptcy forum, courts analyze the twelve factors set forth 

in In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984);1 see also Kronemyer v. Am. Contrs. Indem. Co. 

(In re Kronemyer), 405 B.R. 915, 921 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2009) (“We agree 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.”). 

A. The Relevant Curtis Factors Dictate that the Court Should Deny the Motion 

The Curtis factors most relevant here are the impact of the stay and the “balance of hurt,” 

(Curtis factor 12); whether the foreign proceedings have progressed to a point where the parties are 

prepared for trial (Curtis factor 11); and whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full 

financial responsibility for defending the lawsuit (Curtis factor 5). The first two factors weigh 

heavily in favor of denying the Motion, and the third, while less weighty, plainly points in the same 

direction. 

1. The “Balance of Hurt” Tilts Entirely Toward the Debtors 

As Tiger concedes, the “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.” Mot. at 8 (quoting In re Curtis, 40 B.R. at 806). And 

as the Curtis court further noted, “even slight interference with the administration may be enough 

1 The Curtis factors are: (1) whether the relief will result in partial or complete resolution of issues; 

(2) the lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the foreign 

proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal has been established 

to hear the particular cause of action and whether the tribunal has expertise to hear such cases; 

(5) whether the debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed full financial responsibility for defending the 

litigation; (6) whether the action essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as 

a bailee or conduit for the goods or proceeds in question; (7) whether the litigation in another forum 

would prejudice the interests of other creditors, the creditors’ committee and other interested parties; 

(8) whether the judgment claim arising from the foreign action is subject to equitable subordination; 

(9) whether movant’s success in the foreign proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by 

the debtor under section 522(f); (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and 

economical determination of litigation for the parties; (11) whether the foreign proceedings have 

progressed to a point where the parties are prepared for trial; and (12) the impact of the stay and the 

“balance of hurt.” 40 B.R. at 799-800. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 6 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

to preclude relief in the absence of a commensurate benefit.” 40 B.R. at 806 (emphasis added). 

Indeed, “[i]t is not enough for the creditor to merely show that it will be hurt by the continuation of 

the stay, rather the creditor must show that neither the debtor nor the other creditors will be injured 

if the stay is lifted.” In re Landmark Fence Co., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150928, at *23 (C.D. Cal. 

Dec. 9, 2011). The Motion does not and cannot make this showing because, as detailed below, 

lifting the stay of the Tiger Action would have a deleterious impact on the Debtors’ reorganization 

efforts, and leaving the stay in place will cause Tiger no prejudice at all. 

a. Litigation of the Tiger Action at This Time Risks Significant 

Harm to the Debtors’ Reorganization Efforts 

If the Tiger Action were to proceed at this time, it would impose a substantial and disruptive 

burden on the Utility and would meaningfully risk adverse consequences to the Debtors’ 

reorganization efforts. See Collier Decl. ¶ 5. 

The Tiger Action “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.” Mot. at 5; Collier Decl. ¶ 6. Indeed, CC&B, the Utility billing and collections system 

that is a primary focus of the Tiger Action, “is a complicated Oracle-based system modified by 

Debtor for its services” that “utilizes a complicated process for generating blue bills and allocating 

payments between Debtor PG&E and CTAs.” Mot. at 4; Collier Decl. ¶ 6. As Tiger notes, “the 

course of discovery before the District Court reflects a complicated background” in which “the 

parties analyzed millions of transactions from tens of thousands of accounts from the CC&B system, 

itself a remarkably complex program.” Mot. at 5; Collier Decl. ¶ 6. Moreover, the “interplay 

between the regulatory environment and the legal framework for many of the business torts alleged 

in the [Tiger Action] complaint create additional complexity.” Mot. at 5; Collier Decl. ¶ 6. 

Litigation of the Tiger Action is far from complete. The parties have not yet conducted 

expert discovery, submitted motions for summary judgment, filed Daubert motions, or undertaken 

any pre-trial briefing or otherwise prepared for trial. See Collier Decl. ¶ 7. In fact, as of January 

29, 2019, expert discovery was not set to close for over three months (on May 6, 2019), the deadline 

for dispositive motions was nearly five months away (June 21, 2019), Daubert motions were not 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 7 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

due for six months (August 2, 2019), and trial was not scheduled to begin for over seven-and-a-half 

months (September 16, 2019). See Collier Decl. ¶ 7. 

Permitting the Tiger Action to continue would require the Utility to engage repeatedly and 

fully in the various complex legal and factual issues presented by the matter. See Collier Decl. ¶ 8. 

Indeed, if United Energy Trading LLC v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al (“UET”), Case 

No. 3:15-CV-02383 (RS) (N.D. Cal.) (the “UET Action”), a similar lawsuit commenced by the 

same law firm in which CC&B is also at issue, is any indication, the parties will fiercely litigate 

each remaining stage of the Tiger Action. See Collier Decl. ¶ 8. In the UET Action, which had 

progressed further than the Tiger Action as of the Petition Date, and regarding which UET brought 

motion for relief from stay (since taken off calendar), “the parties disclosed and deposed several 

forensic accountants, economists, and other experts,” submitted “competing motions for summary 

judgment,” and filed “dueling motions under Fed. R. Evid. 702 and Daubert.” See United Energy 

Trading’s Motion for Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1) (Dkt No. 

4323) at 4. 

Given the highly complex nature of the relevant legal and factual issues, and because 

significant litigation remains, allowing the Tiger Action to proceed would necessitate that the 

Debtors devote to the defense of the lawsuit significant resources from at least three separate Utility 

Departments: (i) the Law Department (specifically, the Litigation Group), (ii) the Information 

Technology Department (the “IT Department”), and (iii) the Customer Care Department. See

Collier Decl. ¶¶ 9-13 (detailing the specific involvement of Litigation Group, IT Department, and 

Customer Care Department in the Tiger Action, and setting forth the reasons why such involvement 

is necessary). Involvement of these personnel in the Tiger Action at this time, however, would 

divert their attention from the numerous tasks on which they are currently focusing, as discussed 

below, that are vital to the Debtors’ successful reorganization.2 

 The Litigation Group is currently operating beyond full capacity and simply cannot spare the 

2 These facts also demonstrates that, contrary to Tiger’s assertion that “lifting the stay will not 

negatively affect the bankruptcy case,” Mot. at 9, doing so in fact would interfere with these Chapter 

11 Cases (Curtis factor 2).

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 8 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

resources that would be required to litigate the Tiger Action properly. As the Court is aware, in 

addition to these Chapter 11 Cases, the Debtors are currently participating in the following 

significant proceedings for which the Litigation Group is responsible, among others: (a) In re PG&E 

Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Case No. 3:19-cv-05257 (N.D. Cal.), 

regarding the estimation of the Debtors’ liability for claims arising from the 2017 and 2018 wildfires 

(the “Estimation Proceedings”); (b) a trial of certain Tubbs Fire preference plaintiffs’ claims in the 

California North Bay Fire Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceedings 4955, proceeding in 

front of the Honorable Teri L. Jackson in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco 

(the “Tubbs Action”); (c) California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”) Investigation No. 

I-19-06-015, regarding the October 2017 wildfires, which may be expended to include 2018 Camp 

Fire (the “Wildfire OII”), and (d) the Grand Jury investigation into the Camp Fire initiated by the 

Butte County District Attorney and California Attorney General (the “Camp Fire Investigation”). 

The Debtors are also currently participating in the following additional significant proceedings for 

which other groups within the Law Department are responsible: (a) CPUC Investigation No. 19-

09-016, regarding the competing reorganization plans pursuant to which the Debtors may ultimately 

emerge from these Chapter 11 Cases; (b) the Utility’s 2020 General Rate Case at the CPUC, No. 

A.18-12-009; (c) the CPUC’s investigation into the Utility’s locate and mark practices; and (d) the 

CPUC’s upcoming investigation into the Utility’s Public Safety Power Shutoff Program. 

At the same time, the Debtors are addressing the ramifications of several wildfires, including 

the Kincade Fire, which have recently occurred in their territory and which the Litigation Group is 

responsible for investigating, and are engaged in significant efforts to prevent the occurrence of any 

additional wildfires during the 2019 wildfire season, including through the use of Public Safety 

Power Shutoffs (“PSPS”) during times when high-risk weather conditions are forecasted. See

Collier Decl. ¶ 15. 

Given its familiarity with the Utility and experience in managing large, complex litigation 

matters, the Litigation Group is significantly involved in these Chapter 11 Cases, the Estimation 

Proceedings, the Tubbs Action, the Wildfire OII, and the Camp Fire Investigation, among other 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 9 of

15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

responsibilities. See Collier Decl. ¶ 16.3 Each of these matters is proceeding on a highly expedited 

timeframe, with the Estimation Proceedings, the Tubbs Action, and the CPUC OII scheduled to 

culminate via trial or similar hearings early in 2020, confirmation hearings in these Chapter 11 Cases 

to follow soon thereafter, and the Camp Fire Investigation proceeding apace. See Collier Decl. ¶ 16. 

The Litigation Group’s involvement in these Chapter 11 Cases, the Estimation Proceedings, the 

Tubbs Action, the CPUC OII, and the Camp Fire Investigation is wide-ranging and includes, among 

other tasks: (a) coordinating and overseeing the significant discovery that is currently ongoing in 

each of these proceedings, including large-scale production of documents and regularly occurring 

depositions; (b) assisting the Debtors in preparing for hearings and trials; and (c) overseeing and 

reviewing multiple lengthy and complex documents for filing. See Collier Decl. ¶ 16.4 

The burden associated with these activities cannot be overstated. In the Tubbs Action, there 

are 22 fact depositions scheduled to take place within the next 29 days, with an additional 50 fact 

depositions to be scheduled within that same time frame, and there is an unknown number of expert 

depositions that must be scheduled within the next 35 days. See Collier Decl. ¶ 17. In the Estimation 

Proceedings, the Debtors have produced approximately 3.3 million documents to date, the parties 

are expected to file at least 48 expert reports and take at least 73 depositions, and the hearing is set 

to estimate the Debtors’ liability for at least 23 separate wildfires. See id. 

The IT and Customer Care Departments are also currently handling numerous tasks in 

addition to their ordinary day-to-day responsibilities. See Collier Decl. ¶ 20. Specifically, the IT 

Department is significantly involved in the collection of information in connection with the ongoing 

and expedited discovery occurring in these Chapter 11 Cases, the discovery occurring in the 

Estimation Proceedings, and the discovery occurring in the Tubbs Action. See Collier Decl. ¶ 20. 

3 The Litigation Group is also devoting significant resources to addressing legal issues arising from 

and related to the 2019 wildfire season, including regarding the Kincade Fire and PSPS. See Collier 

Decl. ¶ 18. 

4 As but one specific example of the many conflicts that would arise if the Tiger Action were 

permitted to proceed, the attorney in the Litigation Group who is and has been primarily responsible 

for the Tiger Action since December 2016—Shari Hollis-Ross, Senior Counsel—is the Litigation 

Group attorney overseeing the Debtors’ claims process in these Chapter 11 Cases. See Collier Decl. 

¶ 19. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 10

of 15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

Moreover, the IT Department is addressing various ongoing technical issues relating to PSPS 

efforts, which, again, are crucial to public safety and the Debtors’ ability to achieve a successful 

reorganization. See Collier Decl. ¶ 20. The Customer Care Department is responsible for all 

customer communication issues relating to PSPS and the Utility’s efforts to support customers 

following the Kincade Fire. See Collier Decl. ¶ 20.5

The added burden associated with the Tiger Action would likely impair the ability of the 

Litigation Group, the IT Department, and the Customer Care Department to perform these existing 

responsibilities effectively. See Collier Decl. ¶ 21.6 Given that such an outcome would impede the 

Debtors’ ability to reorganize successfully, which would in turn harm not only the Debtors, but all 

of their stakeholders, including the wildfire victims ahead of whom Tiger seeks to liquidate its 

claims, the Court should deny the Motion.7

b. Denying the Motion Will Not Prejudice Tiger 

In stark contrast to the significant risk of harm to the Debtors should the Tiger Action move 

forward at this time, no adverse consequences would befall Tiger if the stay remains in place. There 

is no urgency justifying moving forward with the Tiger Action so that Tiger can liquidate its claims 

now. That Tiger waited nearly nine months from the Petition Date to file the Motion underscores 

this fact. See, e.g., In re Smith, 389 B.R. 902, 920 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2008) (movant’s three month 

wait from petition date to filing relief from stay motion “belies [his] stated desire for swift resolution 

. . . [a]gainst this background, the fact that trial was imminent in California when [Debtor] filed his 

5 For example, numerous employees from the Customer Care group who are key to the Tiger Action, 

including, among others, Matthew Workman (Manager, Complex Billing), Scott Sanford (VP, 

Customer Operations), and David Gutierrez, who manages the Utility’s relationships with core 

transport agents, are currently focusing on the Debtors’ PSPS efforts. See Collier Decl. ¶ 20. 

6 Moreover, given the complex and expedited nature of these tasks, it is not a viable option to 

reassign them to new personnel in hopes of creating additional capacity for the employees from 

Litigation Group, IT Department, and Customer Care Departments who are key to the defense of 

the Tiger Action. See Collier Decl. ¶ 21. 

7 Furthermore, multiple others creditors would likely view a decision granting the Motion as an 

invitation to seek stay relief themselves, further increasing the Debtors’ burden. This result would 

compound the burden associated with the Tiger Action itself. To be sure, in addition to the Motion, 

the Debtors are currently responding to numerous other stay relief inquiries.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 11

of 15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

case recedes significantly in relevance.”). Even if Tiger did liquidate its claims now, it would not 

be able to collect from the Debtors’ estates until after a plan is confirmed. While Tiger will need to 

be liquidated at some point in the future, there is no justification for imposing the extreme burden 

on the Debtors that liquidating them at this time would require. 

Tiger does not—and cannot—point to any other prejudice it will incur if the Court denies its 

Motion. Courts have determined that the “balance of hurt” supports lifting the stay where keeping 

the stay in place would force movants to endure piecemeal litigation, In re Roger, 539 B.R. 837, 

852-853 (C.D. Cal. 2015), or where debtors were engaging in ongoing wrongful conduct, see

Plumberex, 311 B.R. at 564. Such concerns are not present here. There is no threat of piecemeal 

litigation since the Debtors and their employees are the only defendants, and because the Tiger 

Action does not seek injunctive relief, but only money. 

The next phase of these Chapter 11 Cases is crucial to the Debtors’ reorganization, and the 

Court should not permit the Tiger Action to further burden the Debtors’ personnel where the other 

option—leaving the stay in place—will cause Tiger no harm. 

2. The Parties Are Not “Prepared for Trial” 

 The Motion posits that because the District Court had scheduled trial to begin on September 

16, 2019, this factor somehow “heavily weighs in favor of” stay relief. Mot. at 12. That is plainly 

not the case. Rather, courts have generally only found readiness for trial to weigh in favor of lifting 

the stay where trial was imminent. See, e.g., In re Am. Spectrum Realty, Inc., 540 B.R. 730, 742 

(Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2015) (five weeks from petition date to scheduled trial date); In re Baleine, LP, 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140145, at *37-38 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2015) (three months); Dampier v. 

Credit Invs., Inc. (In re Dampier), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 3800, at *21 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. Nov. 5, 2015) 

(discovery completed and foreign proceeding set for trial less than three weeks after petition date). 

 As of the Petition Date, trial in the Tiger Action was over seven-and-a-half months away and 

the parties had not yet conducted expert discovery, submitted motions for summary judgment, filed 

Daubert motions, or undertaken any pre-trial briefing or otherwise prepared for trial. See Collier 

Decl. ¶ 7. Moreover, given the high likelihood of contentious litigation occurring during each of 

these pre-trial phases, see Collier Decl. ¶ 8, there exists a real possibility that, if the Tiger Action 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 12

of 15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

were to resume, it would actually be much longer than seven-and-a-half months before trial actually 

commenced. The temporally distant nature of any trial in the Tiger Action, and the significant 

discovery and related litigation that must first occur, cuts strongly in favor of denying the Motion. 

See, e.g., In re Sunland, Inc., 508 B.R. 739, 744-745 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2014) (no stay relief where 

trial scheduled for eight months from petition date and no dispositive motions filed). 

3. Tiger’s Claims Are Not Covered by Insurance 

The Motion states that the Debtors’ insurance coverage is “not relevant here.” Mot. at 8. 

Tiger is correct only insofar as this Curtis factor does not support stay relief. Courts will lift the 

stay more readily where a debtor’s insurance carrier has assumed financial responsibility and the 

impact on the estate of permitting the nonbankruptcy litigation to proceed is therefore minimized. 

See, e.g., Myles v. Xinergy, Ltd. (In re Xinergy Ltd.), 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 1908, at *13 (Bankr. W.D. 

Va. June 11, 2015). Here, however, the Debtors do not have liability insurance coverage for the 

allegations set forth in the Tiger Action. See Collier Decl. ¶ 22. Courts have declined to lift the 

stay where the debtor’s insurer has disputed coverage, because of the likelihood of burden to the 

estate resulting. In re Sunland, Inc., 508 B.R. 739, 743-744 (Bankr. D. N.M. 2014). A similar 

rationale applies here: were the stay lifted, the Debtors’ estates would bear the cost of defense and 

liability incurred in connection with the Tiger Action directly and exclusively, which, in addition to 

the reasons laid out in section III(A) above, would increase the burden on the Debtors. 

B. The Curtis Factors Relied Upon by Tiger Are Unavailing 

Tiger states that Curtis factors 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 10 require this Court to lift the stay, but 

factors 3 and 6 in fact favor leaving the stay in place, and factors 1, 4, 7 and 10 do not materially 

support Tiger’s request to allow the Tiger Action to proceed at this time, or come close to 

outweighing the factors that militate against stay relief at this time. 

The rationale behind Curtis factor 3 (whether the foreign proceeding involves the debtor as 

a fiduciary) is that “proceedings in which the debtor is a fiduciary . . . need not be stayed because 

they bear no relationship to the purpose of the automatic stay, which is debtor protection from his 

creditors.” 40 B.R. at 799, relying solely on and quoting In re Bailey, 11 BR. 199, 201, 202 (Bankr. 

E.D. Va. 1981). In Bailey, an early Bankruptcy Code decision that offers little in the way of facts 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 13

of 15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

or analysis, the court granted stay relief to permit discovery and an accounting from an individual 

chapter 7 debtor regarding the debtor’s activities as an undisputed fiduciary (a director and officer 

of a dissolved corporation). The controlling principle appears to be that the litigation activity against 

the debtor/fiduciary permitted by stay relief had little or no impact on the administration of the 

debtor’s bankruptcy estate, but instead sought to illuminate whether and how the fiduciary had met 

his fiduciary obligations. Here, on the other hand, Tiger is unabashedly seeking to establish a claim 

against the Utility (and its estate), through burdensome litigation that threatens to consume 

significant estate resources of money and time. Tiger forthrightly asserts that it is a creditor of the 

Utility. It has filed a proof of claim against the Utility, Claim No. 64095, and seeks monetary 

damages through the Tiger Action. Accordingly, the Tiger Action falls squarely within the 

automatic stay’s purpose of protecting the Debtors (and their estates) from their creditors.8 

Tiger also misunderstands Curtis factor 6 (whether “the action essentially involves third 

parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the goods or proceeds in question) 

in claiming that it favors relief from stay because the Tiger Action involves three Individual 

Defendants and the Utility acts as an “intermediary billing agent.” Mot. at 10-11. The critical point 

of this Curtis factor is whether the debtor’s role in the nonbankruptcy litigation is minimal because 

it “essentially involves third parties, and the debtor functions only as a bailee or conduit for the 

goods or proceeds in question.” 40 B.R. at 800 (emphasis added). For example, stay relief is 

appropriate where “the instant action is no more than a dispute between third parties and only 

incidentally involves the debtor, as an alleged bailee of the goods in issue.” In re Columbia Ribbon 

& Carbon Mfg. Co., 13 B.R. 276, 278 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1981). This is not the situation in the Tiger 

Action, which is a multi-million dollar billing practices dispute between Tiger on the one hand and 

the Utility on the other. Tiger seeks a recovery of damages directly from the Utility based on 

8

 Furthermore, contrary to Tiger’s assertions, Mot. at 10, the Utility disputes that it is a fiduciary to 

Tiger; there has been no determination in the Tiger Action whether PG&E is Tiger’s fiduciary. In 

the UET Action, a companion case with similar facts, Judge Seeborg stated that although UET might

“be able to demonstrate the existence of a fiduciary relationship with PG&E to the limited extent of 

billing activities, its bid for summary judgment runs aground on the shoals of breach” because 

whether the Utility breached any duty is a triable issue of fact. (N.D. Cal. Case No. 3:15-CV-02383 

(RS), Dkt. No. 222). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 14

of 15
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 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

allegations of misconduct by the Utility, and the fact that Tiger alleges that the Utility acts an 

“intermediary billing agent” between Tiger’s customers and Tiger—which the Utility disputes—

does not render the Utility’s role in the litigation “only” that of a bailee.9 

In conclusion, the Court should deny this Motion fails to establish a prima facie basis for its 

requested relief from the automatic stay. 

Dated: November 8, 2019 WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

KELLER & BENVNUTTI LLP 

By: /s/ Peter J. Benvenutti 

 Peter J. Benvenutti 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession

9 Furthermore, the presence of the three Individual Defendants is not at all analogous to the situation 

contemplated by Curtis and Columbia Ribbon, and it is manifest that the Tiger Action is not 

“essentially” between them and Tiger. At the March 27, 2019 Hearing, the Court asked counsel for 

Tiger “You don’t really want to prosecute this lawsuit against one former and two current 

employees, do you?...I mean, that’s crazy.” Transcript at 23:2-5. The Court was referring to 

proceeding against the Individual Defendants in the absence of the Debtors, but the reverse is also 

true: the presence or absence of the Individual Defendants cannot dictate whether the stay should 

be lifted. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4622 Filed: 11/08/19 Entered: 11/08/19 12:49:08 Page 15

of 15