In re PG&E Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 1, 2025
• Docket: 4:24-cv-07449
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 PG&E CORPORATION, Case No. 24-cv-07449-HSG

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL 9 v. Re: Dkt. No. 3 10 OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 14 Pending before the Court is a motion filed by PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and 15 Electric Company (collectively, “PG&E”) for leave to appeal three orders of the Bankruptcy 16 Court. See Dkt. No. 3-1. The Bankruptcy Court largely denied PG&E’s objections to securities 17 claims asserted in the bankruptcy. See Dkt. No. 3-1, Exs. A–C. PG&E argues that the Bankruptcy 18 Court erred by (1) failing to apply the heightened pleading standard under the Private Securities 19 Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”); and (2) allowing claims regarding a 2018 exchange offering to 20 survive. See Dkt. No. 3-1 at 13–20. 21 District courts have jurisdiction to hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees 22 of a bankruptcy court. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1). A non-final bankruptcy court order can be 23 reviewed on appeal only if this Court grants leave. See 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3); see also Fed. R. 24 Bankr. P. 8002, 8004. The Ninth Circuit has held that interlocutory appeals should be allowed 25 “sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.” See In re Cement Antitrust Litig. (MDL No. 26 296), 673 F.2d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave to appeal an interlocutory order is appropriate 27 where (1) there is a controlling question of law, (2) as to which a substantial ground for a 1 termination of the litigation. See id. In deciding whether to grant leave to appeal under 2 § 158(a)(3), courts look to the analogous provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) governing review of 3 interlocutory district court orders by the courts of appeal. In re Belli, 268 B.R. 851, 858 (B.A.P. 4 || 9th Cir. 2001); In re Wilson, No. BR 13-11374 AJ, 2014 WL 122074, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 5 |} 2014). 6 The Court finds that there is no basis to grant interlocutory review here. Resolving 7 || whether the PSLRA’s heightened pleading standard should apply to the securities claims in the 8 || bankruptcy and whether the 2018 exchange offering claims should survive would not materially 9 advance the litigation, and instead would materially delay it. PG&E posits, for example, that if the 10 || Bankruptcy Court had applied the PSLRA pleading standard “it likely would have dismissed 11 several of the pending claims.” See Dkt. No. 3-1 at 13.! But that argument is both hotly contested 12 || and inherently speculative. And even accepting PG&E’s position, some of the securities claims 5 13 || would still survive. PG&E makes little effort to explain how dismissing just some of the securities 14 || claims here would appreciably streamline the litigation. This Court can address any issues about 3 15 the applicable standard and viability of claims in any eventual appeal of a final judgment. The a 16 || Court therefore declines to exercise its discretion to hear PG&E’s appeal at this time and DENIES 3 17 the motion. Dkt. No. 3-1. The Clerk is directed to the case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 |} Dated: 8/1/2025 20 Alain 8 Mb}. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 For ease of reference, the Court refers to the PDF pages rather than the document’s internal pagination.