Addington v. PG&E Corporation

Background

David P. Addington, representing himself, appealed orders from the bankruptcy court in PG&E Corporation’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. The dispute concerns two electric transmission towers in Addington’s backyard. PG&E’s predecessor, Great Western Power Company, obtained a 1908 utility easement allowing it to erect and maintain the towers and necessary wires for transmitting and distributing electricity. The easement also required the utility to avoid interfering with the property owner’s use of the land as far as reasonably possible and stated that violating its conditions would terminate the easement.

In 2016, PG&E performed maintenance work around the towers for health and safety reasons. The parties later agreed that PG&E would pay Addington a total of $49,790 for landscaping-related matters. Their agreement said that accepting the revised amount would fully and finally release PG&E from obligations arising under that work agreement. Addington signed an acknowledgment that he received the payment.

In 2017, Addington recorded a document called “Termination of Easement.” He believed the easement’s conditions had been violated and that the easement had ended. During PG&E’s bankruptcy, he first filed a proof of claim seeking more than $3.5 million, apparently for electricity transmitted through the towers after the date he claimed the easement ended. The bankruptcy court sustained PG&E’s objection to that claim but allowed Addington to amend it to seek damages for harm occurring after the payment date covered by his release.

Addington amended his claim to seek approximately $1 million for property damage and emotional distress. He also sought quiet title concerning the towers, a declaration of the parties’ rights, damages related to the release, and additional discovery. He separately filed an adversary proceeding seeking largely the same relief. PG&E argued that the easement remained effective and that the release barred claims based on the 2016 work.

Bankruptcy Court Rulings

On July 24, 2023, the bankruptcy court granted PG&E’s motion for summary judgment. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the record shows no genuine dispute over facts important to the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The bankruptcy court held that Addington did not own the towers, had not presented an actual controversy requiring a determination of his rights under the easement, could not recover damages for claims related to the 2016 work because he had released them, and could not seek emotional-distress damages based on the condition of his property.

The bankruptcy court denied Addington’s motion for reconsideration the next day. It concluded that he had not shown the clear error or serious unfairness required for reconsideration and had instead repeated arguments the court had already rejected.

District Court Review

The district court reviewed the summary-judgment decision without deference to the bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions. It reviewed the denial of reconsideration for abuse of discretion, meaning it would reverse only if the bankruptcy court’s decision reflected a clear error of judgment.

Ownership of the Towers

Addington argued that the towers were real property and therefore belonged to him because they were immovable. The district court rejected that argument. It explained that the parties’ rights were controlled by the easement’s language. The easement expressly gave PG&E an interest in the property for the purpose of erecting and maintaining the towers and wires used to transmit and distribute electricity. The court reasoned that PG&E’s ability to transmit and distribute electricity would cease to exist if Addington owned the towers as soon as they were built.

Trespass and Emotional-Distress Damages

Addington argued that PG&E trespassed by removing a light he had attached to one tower and taking photographs in his yard. He sought to add emotional-distress damages. The district court agreed with the bankruptcy court that Addington had had sufficient opportunity to plead facts supporting that claim but had failed to do so. The court also stated that his argument appeared to depend on the mistaken belief that he controlled the towers, while the easement expressly allowed PG&E to maintain them.

Discovery

Addington argued that the bankruptcy court granted summary judgment before allowing reasonable discovery, including discovery about the engineering report that guided PG&E’s work and standards for future work in his yard. The district court noted that the bankruptcy court had explained how he could seek additional discovery, but Addington did not file a motion to compel or request more time to respond to the summary-judgment motion. The court further concluded that the information sought did not appear related to his existing bankruptcy claim and that Addington acknowledged it was not intended to develop that claim.

Disposition

The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment in PG&E’s favor and its denial of Addington’s motion for reconsideration. The clerk was directed to close the case.