Gantner v. PG&E Corporation

Background

PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company filed bankruptcy cases under Chapter 11 in the Northern District of California Bankruptcy Court. During those cases, Anthony Gantner filed a class action complaint concerning five public safety power shutoff events that occurred in October and November 2019. His single claim was for negligence. He sought damages for losses including loss of habitability, lost food, and lost productivity for himself and the proposed class.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The Bankruptcy Court granted the motion without leave to amend, concluding that California Public Utilities Code § 1759 preempted Gantner’s claim. Gantner appealed that order to the District Court.

Legal issue and arguments

The District Court considered whether allowing Gantner’s negligence claim to proceed would improperly hinder or interfere with the California Public Utilities Commission’s regulatory policies, as prohibited by § 1759. The court explained that California’s three-part test asks whether the Commission had authority to regulate the subject, whether it exercised that authority, and whether the lawsuit would interfere with that authority.

Gantner argued that California Public Utilities Code § 2106 made the defendants liable for damage caused by negligence and that his lawsuit would support, rather than interfere with, the Commission’s authority. He did not challenge the Commission’s approval of the power shutoffs or allege that the defendants violated the Commission’s guidelines or their Commission-approved Wildfire Safety Plan. Instead, his theory was that the shutoffs would not have been necessary if the defendants had not been negligent beforehand.

Court’s analysis

The court found that the Commission had authority to regulate public safety power shutoff events and had exercised that authority through statutes, guidelines, rulemaking, the approval of the defendants’ 2019 Wildfire Safety Plan, and investigations into the late-2019 shutoffs.

The court concluded that Gantner’s theory would impose liability even when the defendants conducted a power shutoff authorized by Commission regulations and carried it out consistently with the applicable requirements. In the court’s view, imposing liability under that theory could discourage utilities from conducting shutoffs when the Commission’s rules considered them warranted. The lawsuit therefore would interfere with the Commission’s broad and continuing regulatory program. Section 1759 consequently barred the negligence claim.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. held that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the complaint without leave to amend. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s dismissal order, directed the clerk to terminate the appeal, and closed the case.