EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5156-1 Filed: 12/17/19 Entered: 12/17/19 21:06:56 Page 1

of 4
-1-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

for the Northern District of California

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

ORDER ON APPLICABILITY OF INVERSE CONDEMNATION; 

RULE 54(b) CERTIFICATION

I. INTRODUCTION

 For the reasons stated in this court’s Memorandum Decision on Inverse Condemnation 

filed on November 27, 2019 (Dkt. #4895), the doctrine of inverse condemnation applies to 

Debtors as a matter of law. 

Signed and Filed: December 3, 2019

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Entered on Docket 

December 03, 2019

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4949 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 09:48:48 Page 1 of

 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5156-1 Filed: 12/17/19 Entered: 12/17/19 21:06:56 Page 2

of 4
-2-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

for the Northern District of California

This order is issued pursuant to this court’s Order Establishing Pre-Confirmation 

Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Certain Legal Issues (Dkt. #4540), Rule 54(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) and Rules 7054, 9014 and 9021 of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure. 

II. BACKGROUND

 The court’s concurrent Memorandum Decision concludes that the doctrine of inverse 

condemnation applies to Debtors. The Memorandum Decision is based purely on the legal 

issue with no factual findings. Although there was no motion or request formally filed to obtain 

this order, this court’s Order Establishing Pre-Confirmation Briefing and Hearing Schedule for 

Certain Legal Issues (Dkt. #4540) sets the stage for orders being deemed final and being 

certified for direct appeal if it appeared appropriate at the time of the decision. At the hearing 

on inverse condemnation, the court asked the parties whether they wished to pursue this issue 

on direct appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The parties answered in the affirmative. 

III. FINAL JUDGMENT

 FRCP 54(b) provides that, when more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, 

a court may direct entry of final judgment upon an express determination that there is no just 

reason for delay. As laid out by the United States Supreme Court, a court must first determine 

it is dealing with a final judgment. Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company, 

446 U.S. 1, 7 (1980). The judgment must be “a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief” and 

must be final in the sense that “it is an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the 

course of a multiple claims action.” Id., quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Mackey, 351 U.S. 

427, 436 (1956). The court must then determine whether there is any just reason for delay. 

Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8. 

Here, this court is dealing with a final judgment. The issue of whether inverse 

condemnation applies to Debtors has been fully briefed and disposed of in the context of this 

proceeding. Nothing further needs to be adjudicated on this topic and no sub-issues remain. 

The issue of whether inverse condemnation will not be called into question by further 

proceedings in this case. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4949 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 09:48:48 Page 2 of

 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5156-1 Filed: 12/17/19 Entered: 12/17/19 21:06:56 Page 3

of 4
-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

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

for the Northern District of California

In addition, there is no just reason for delay. In making this determination, this court 

must take into account judicial administrative interest as well as equities, particularly to 

preserve federal policy against piecemeal appeals. See Curtiss-Wright, 446 U.S. at 8. Here, the 

issue of inverse condemnation in this case is separable from other issues of Debtors’ liability in 

wildfires, as this issue pertains to just one theory of liability, one without regard to fault or 

negligence, only causation. An appellate court will not be faced with deciding this discrete 

issue more than once: this court has ruled on the issue of inverse condemnation, which shall not 

be disturbed unless an appellate court overturns it. See In Re Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company, 275 B.R. 1, 3 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2002) (where court’s definitive ruling on discrete 

issue was a factor in favor of finding no just reason for delay). 

Finally, equity favors certification. As laid out in the Memorandum Decision, this issue 

determines Debtors’ liability for billions of dollars and shapes the outline of a Chapter 11 plan 

and this case in general. The California Supreme Court has not ruled on this issue directly and 

the parties to this case require answers before a legislative deadline of June 30, 2020. Due to 

the dearth of California Supreme Court authority on this issue of public importance and the 

weight of an impending legislative deadline, this court sees no just reason for delay. 

*** END OF ORDER ***

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4949 Filed: 12/03/19 Entered: 12/03/19 09:48:48 Page 3 of

 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5156-1 Filed: 12/17/19 Entered: 12/17/19 21:06:56 Page 4

of 4