This is how petty I've become: When I heard on Monday night that some people not too far away from me got their power restored by Pacific Gas & Electric I wasn't happy for them. I was just bitterly jealous—our power has been out continuously since Saturday. (That's my daughter above, hanging out at home in the dark.)

I consoled myself by remembering my Marin County, California, neighbors would probably have electricity for less than 24 hours. It's supposed to be windy again today (by "windy," we're talking 10 to 15 mph during the day, and 2 mph tonight, per my weather app) and PG&E scheduled yet another "public safety power shutoff." 

When will we get power back? Who knows? PG&E isn't saying. 

While I admit no electricity is preferable to catastrophic wildfires that kill dozens of people and destroy billions of dollars in property, surely the choice shouldn't be either/or. 

On my town's listserv and Facebook group, there have been repeated calls along the lines of "We should all sue the bastards." 

Twitter is equally full of indignant customers clamoring for litigation. "When someone starts a class action lawsuit against PG&E let me know. My business has been royally screwed by the unnecessary and without notice outages in my area," wrote one person. "Where's Erin Brockovich when you need her?! Pg&e needs another class action lawsuit," wrote another.

All I can say is, good luck—and get in line.  

The utility, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in January, has been hit in recent days with multiple shareholder class actions. Pomerantz, for example, sued PG&E in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Oct. 25. 

The complaint claims that the utility made materially false and misleading statements about its "purportedly enhanced wildfire prevention and safety protocols and procedures," which turned out to be "inadequate to meet the challenges for which they were ostensibly designed."

PG&E stock started the year trading at $23.80 and is now around $5 a share.

In September, the utility—represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore—reached an $11 billion deal to resolve claims by insurance companies for losses from fires in 2017 and 2018. The settlement follows an agreement in June to compensate local governments $1 billion for fire-related damages such as loss of natural resources, loss of public parks and fire suppression costs.

PG&E still faces about 70,000 claims from individual fire victims—people who lost their homes, cars or other possessions, or suffered physical injuries or emotional distress. On Monday, PG&E agreed to extend the deadline for filing such claims until December 20. 

Moreover, PG&E is slated for an eight-week trial in San Francisco Superior Court in January. (How'd you like to pick that jury?) 

The utility is being sued by victims of the 2017 Tubbs fire, which destroyed more than 4,600 homes and killed 22 people in Sonoma and Napa counties. 

State investigators determined—for once—that the fire was not PG&E's fault, concluding it was started by a private property owner's electrical system. But U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali in August ruled that a jury should decide if PG&E was in fact culpable. If so, that could add billions more to PG&E's legal tab.

Oh also, the 75,000-plus acre Kincade fire currently burning in Sonoma County? Even though PG&E had cut power by de-energizing its distribution lines, its transmission lines reportedly still had juice—and may have ignited the blaze. 

So what about the 2 million of us PG&E deliberately left in the dark? Do we have claims for the spoiled food in our freezers? 

By law, PG&E is allowed to shut off electric power to protect public safety under California Public Utilities Code Sections 451 and 399.2(a). And in May, California's Public Utilities Commission approved PG&E's wildfire mitigation plan, which specified shutting down the power when fire danger is high.

This does not strike me as providing the makings of a winning consumer class action.

Asking PG&E directly for compensation is also not likely to succeed. 

Last fall, when PG&E did its first-ever power safety shutoff (which was much shorter and smaller in scope) it got 146 claims from customers, mostly for food loss and business interruption. It rejected them all, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. 

"We do not reimburse customers for losses, as power will be shut off for safety when gusty winds and dry conditions, combined with a heightened fire risk, threaten a portion of the electric system," said spokeswoman Mayra Tostado.

Which leaves small claims court—and perhaps the only judgments PG&E can afford to pay.

We hope you enjoyed this excerpt from Litigation Daily, the exclusive source for sharp commentary on mega court battles, winning strategies and the issues that obsess elite litigators. Click here to subscribe.