402350-v2 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

SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL Electronically Filed 02/20/2019

A Professional Law Corporation

James P. Hill, SBN 90478

Jonathan S. Dabbieri, SBN 91963

Christopher V. Hawkins, SBN 222961

600 B Street, Suite 1700

San Diego, California 92101

Telephone: (619) 233-4100

Fax Number: (619) 231-4372

Attorneys for Certain Fire Victim Claimants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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

(Lead Case)

(Jointly Administered)

OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF DEBTORS 

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 363(b), 

AND 507 AND FED. R. BANKR. P. 6003 AND 

6004 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL 

AUTHORITY TO (I) PAY PREPETITION 

WAGES, SALARIES, WITHHOLDING 

OBLIGATIONS, AND OTHER 

COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS; (II) 

MAINTAIN EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 

PROGRAMS; AND (III) PAY RELATED 

ADMINISTRATIVE OBLIGATIONS

Date: February 27, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m. (Pacific)

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Affects:

PG&E Corporation

Pacific Gas & Electric Company

Both Debtors

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 517 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 16:05:08 Page 1 of 4
402350-v2 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

Andrew Armstrong; Annie Curtis; Jackie Easton and Ray LeLoup; James Finn; Lillian 

Lazzeri; Tim Shurtliff; Marc Thomas and Susan Thomas; Kristina Wuslich; Lisa Yoshida; and 

Doreen Zimmerman (collectively, the “SLF Fire Victim Claimants”), hereby oppose the Motion of 

Debtors Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(A), 363(B), and 507 and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6003 and 6004 for 

Interim and Final Authority to (i) Pay Prepetition Wages, Salaries, Withholding Obligations, and 

Other Compensation and Benefits; (ii) Maintain Employee Benefits Programs; and (iii) Pay Related 

Administrative Obligations (“Motion”)1 filed by debtors PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (collectively, “PG&E” or the “Debtors”) to the extent that the Debtors seek 

authorization to pay their Employees in STIP (Short-Term Incentive Plan) Awards. 

The Butte Fire began on September 9, 2015, in Amador County. It burned more than 70,000 

acres in Amador and Calaveras Counties, destroying over 700 structures and killing two (2) people. 

Governmental entities, subrogating insurance companies, and over 4,000 individual plaintiffs filed 

suit against PG&E, and the Judicial Council ordered the cases coordinated in Sacramento County 

Superior Court. Plaintiffs and PG&E put together a mediation protocol and settled the majority of the 

cases, including those of all of the subrogating insurers, over 3,000 individual plaintiffs, and the 

County of Calaveras. The remaining unsettled cases include approximately 1,000 individuals, the 

State of California, and several smaller municipalities.

The Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”) represents the 11 fire victims named above, plus 

approximately 3,500 additional individuals who were victims of the 2015 Butte, 2017 North Bay and 

the 2018 Camp Fires. Of these, approximately 700 are Butte Fire victims.

The SLF Fire Victim Claimants object to the proposed $130 million in bonuses requested by 

PG&E. While the claimants understand the Debtors need to retain quality people, giving the 

executives of a company whose failed safety practices have driven it into bankruptcy sends exactly 

the wrong message to the utility industry, the victims, and the public. By definition, a “bonus” is an 

amount of money paid in addition to a salary, typically as a reward for good performance. However, 

 

 1 All capitalized terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the same meanings given to them in the 

Motion.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 517 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 16:05:08 Page 2 of 4
402350-v2 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

PG&E’s safety record over the past few years is appalling.2 Indeed, from 2015 to 2018, there was 

only one year (2016) in which PG&E did not start at least one fire that killed multiple people and 

burned tens of thousands of acres. While the SLF Fire Victim Claimants are not requesting that the 

Court lower the current salaries of PG&E’s executives, rewarding the very people whose failure to 

comply with basic safety practices killed scores of people and destroyed nearly 20,000 homes in 

Northern California over the past 4 years adds insult to injury for the victims. By rewarding the very 

people who caused these catastrophes, it also sends the wrong message to the executives of other 

utilities.

However, safety is not the only category in which PG&E’s performance has fallen short. It 

has failed economically. In just the past year, its stock has lost over 60% of its value, costing its 

shareholders billions of dollars. Under what economic theory are the managers who lost billions for a 

company entitled to over $100 million in bonuses?

Given PG&E’s poor record in both safety and business, bonuses at this time simply are not 

appropriate. This money would be much better spent being used to compensate PG&E’s victims than 

in rewarding the very executives whose decisions caused these catastrophes. 

This is particularly true given the status of the Butte Fire cases. The mediation process 

negotiated by Plaintiffs and PG&E was resulting in the settling of 40-50 cases per month at the time 

PG&E filed bankruptcy. If PG&E had not filed, then all individual cases likely would have been 

resolved by late summer 2019. The amount of money PG&E is requesting for bonuses ($130 million) 

is very close to the amount that would be required to resolve all remaining individual cases. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

 2 See, inter alia, the recent order to show cause issued by the California Public Utilities Commission on December 14, 

2018, regarding PG&E’s alleged failure to comply with safety inspections requirements for years. (http://docs.cpuc.ca. 

gov/PublishedDocs/Published/G000/M246/K120/246120841.PDF.) PG&E subsequently admitted that its managers 

pressured employees to falsify the “tens of thousands” of inspections: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations /PGEShakes-Up-Management-After-Regulators-Accuse-Utility-of-Falsifying-Safety-Inspections-502988162.html. This comes 

on the heels of PG&E’s felony conviction in San Francisco Federal District Court for violating safety practices in 

connection with the 2010 San Bruno explosion that killed eight (8) people.

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 517 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 16:05:08 Page 3 of 4
402350-v2 4

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

Accordingly, rather than giving $130 million in bonuses to PG&E's executives, Plaintiffs 

respectfully submit that this money should be used to resolve as many as possible of the remaining 

Butte Fire cases, as the Butte Fire Plaintiffs have been waiting nearly 3 and 1/2 years for relief.

Dated: February 20, 2019 SULLIVAN HILL REZ & ENGEL

A Professional Law Corporation

By: /s/ Christopher V. Hawkins

James P. Hill

Christopher V. Hawkins

Jonathan S. Dabbieri

Attorneys for the Certain Fire Victim Claimants

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 517 Filed: 02/20/19 Entered: 02/20/19 16:05:08 Page 4 of 4