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

McCormick, Barstow,

Sheppard, Wayte &

Carruth LLP

7M7 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

McCormick, Barstow, Sheppard,

Wayte & Carruth LLP

Hagop T. Bedoyan, #131285

hasop. bedovan(a>.mccormickbarstow. com

7647 North Fresno Street

Fresno, California 93720

Telephone: (559)433-1300

Facsimile: (559) 433-2300

Attorneys for Scott and Charlyse Raven

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

- andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

[ ] Affects PG&E Corporation

[x] Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

[ ] Affects Both

*A11 papers shall be filed in the Lead Case

No. 19-30088

Case No. 3:19-bk-30088-(DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case Jointly Administered)

SCOTT AND CHARLYSE RAVEN'S

MOTION FROM AND/OR

MODIFICATION OF THE PLAN

INJUNCTION AND/OR FOR

ABSTENTION AND SUPPORTING

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES

Date: November 30, 2022

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: Ct. Rm. 17

United States Bankruptcy Court

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Hearing will be conducted

telephonically or by video

Judee: Honorable Dennis Montali

Scott Raven and Charlyse Raven ("Movants") hereby move for relief from the plan

injunction and/or for abstention (the "Motion") in order to allow Movants to proceed with

liquidating their claim againstPacificGasand ElectricCompany("PG&E") in the MontereyCounty

Superior Court afterunsuccessfully participating in this Court's ADRprocedures for general claims

on May 19, 2022. Pursuant to Local Rule 4001-1(a), respondent may appear by counsel at the

1 Case No. 19-30088-DM

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 1

of 8
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

mcCormick, barstow,

Shepparo, Wayte &

Carruth LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. OA 93720

preliminary hearing. Movants represent the following:

I. JURISDICTION

1. This Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334,157 and 11 U.S.C. §§ 362 and 524. The reliefrequested in the Motion is a core proceeding

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.

Movants consent to the bankruptcy court's authority to issue final orders or judgments in this matter

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(2).

II. RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

2. Movants are engaged in the commercial production of livestock and own a cattle

ranch located at 4725 Vineyard Canyon road, approximately three miles northeast of the town of

San Miguel, California (the "Raven Ranch"). Declaration ofScott Raven in Support ofMotionfor

Relief From Plan Injunction And/Or Abstention ("Raven decl."), 3. The Raven Ranch is

comprised of approximately 3,4446 acres in San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties. Id. The

Movants also lease an additional approximate 160 acres. Id. The Raven Ranch contained an

extensive fencing system, dividing the ranch into six different pastures with associated roadways

and stock watering systems, allowing the ranch to use a rotational grazing system for the herd. Id.

3. Jennifer Hodges ("Hodges") was the ovmer of approximately 931 acres located at

77820 Vineyard Canyon Road, land which is roughly across the street from the Raven Ranch (the

"Hodges Property"), /t/., at H4. The Hodges Property includes an equestrian riding arena with an

elevated lighting system. Id.

4. PG&E and/or its contractor. Hot Line Construction, Inc. ("Hot Line"), constructed,

modified, and/or maintained an electrical powerline and associated equipment on the Hodges

Property and in close proximity to a light pole that was part of the equestrian riding arena located

on the Hodges Property. M, at H5.

5. Due to wind, the powerline and lighting fixture came into contact and ignited a fire

on July 8, 2017. Id, at H6. The blaze grew into what was to be known as the Parkfield Fire. Id.

The fire spreadto the surrounding properties, including the Raven Ranch. Id. Overroughly half of

Raven Ranch was burned, includingtwo pasturestotaling 1680 acres offorage that was reservedto

9 CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 2

of 8
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

McCormick, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD,WAVTE&

CARRUTH LLP

7847 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

feed the Movants' herd during the late summer and fall. Id. Seven miles offencing, stock watering

systems, and shade structures were lost, one cow was destroyed and the road system was damaged.

Id. The fire bumed to the exterior wall ofthe Movants' residence, destroying portions ofthe yard,

irrigation system, entry gate, domestic water well, and causing extensive smoke damage to the

Movants' residence. Id.

6. On January 18, 2018, Movants filed their lawsuit against PG&E, Hodges and Hot

Line in Monterey County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV00258, asserting causes of action arising

from the Parkfield Fire for trespass, negligence, negligence interference with economic relations,

inverse condemnation (the "State Court Action"). Id., at U 7. Movants filed a second amended

complaint on July 26, 2018. Id. A true and correct copy of the second amended complaint is

attached as Exhibit A to the Raven decl. Movants have requested a jury trial. Id.

1. PG&E filed its Voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Petition (the "Petition") on January

29,2019 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of California. /<7., at ^ 8.

8. On August 28, 2019, Movants electronically filed their proof of claim in the PG&E

bankruptcy case as a general xmsecured claim in the amount of $8,000,000 (the "Claim"). Id, at

1|9.

9. On June 20, 2020, the Court entered an order confirming the Debtors' and

Shareholder Proponents' Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated June 19, 2020 (the

"Confirmation Order"). [Doc 8053]. The Effective Date ofthe Plan occurred on July 1, 2020.

10. On September 25, 2020, the Court entered the Order Approving ADR and Related

Procedures for Resolving General Claims (the "General Claims ADR Procedures Order") [Doc

9148]. The General Claims ADR Procedures Order approved "General Claims Procedures" (as

defined therein) that allow: (i) General Claimants (i.e., holders of Claims other than Fire Victim

Claims, Subrogation Wildfire Claims, or Securities Claims to submit, by mail or via a secure online

portal,informationnecessaryto allowthe ReorganizedDebtorsto evaluatetheir Claimsanddevelop

settlement proposal for General Claimants; and (ii) the parties to exchange settlement offers or

engage in standard or abbreviated forms ofmediation to resolve General Claims.

///

-X CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 3

of 8
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

McCormick, Barstow,

SHEPPARD.WAYTE&

CARRUTH LLP

7M7 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA SS720

11. In accordance with the General Claims Procedures, Movants submitted their

response to PG&E's Information Questionnaire, and Movants received a "Notice of Standard

Mediation," wherein Movants and Hot Line were notified that they were required to attend nonbinding mediation relating to the Claim. M, at ^ 10.

12. On May 19, 2022, PG&E, Hot Line and Movants participated in mediation before

Judge Patrick J. O'Hara (Ret.) via Zoom. M, at 111. Hodges did not participate since she sought

relief under the Bankruptcy Code as noted supra. Id. Unfortunately, the mediation did not result in

resolution ofthe Claim. Id.

13. Under Section 7.1 ofthe Plan, PG&E had 180 days from the Plan Effective date to

serve and file objections to claims. [Doc 8053]. The Plan provided, however, for extensions ofthis

period for cause shown. Id. There have been several extensions ofthis period over the past two

years. At the present time, the Court's Order Further Extending Deadline for the Reorganized

Debtors to Object to Claims and Granting Related Relief dated May 19, 2022, extends the deadline

for PG&E to serve and file objections to claims under Section 7.1 ofthe Plan for an additional 180

days through and including December 19,2022, without prejudice to the Reorganized Debtors' right

to seek additional extensions therefor. [Doc 12432].

14. As of the date of this filing, Movants are not aware of any objection by the

Reorganized Debtors to their Claim, /c/., at H12.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

15. A bankruptcy court can exercise discretion and abstain from hearing a particular

proceeding arising under title 11, or arising in or related to a case under title 11, in the interest of

justice, or in the interest of comity with State courts or respect for State law. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1334(c)(1); see also In re Tucson Estates, Inc., 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990); In re

Middlesex Power Equipment and Marine, 292 F.3d 61, 68 (1st Cir. 2002).

16. Courts apply the same principles that apply to motion for relief from stay when

considering whether there is cause to modify a plan injunction. See, e.g.. In re SquareTwo Fin.

Servs. Corp., 17-10659 (JLG), 2017 WL 4012818, at *1 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11,2017); see also,

11 U.S.C. § 362(d) (bankruptcy court "shall grant relieffrom stay" upon showing of "cause.").

4 CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 4

of 8
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

MCCORUICK, BARSTOW,

SHEPPARD,WAYTE&

CARRUTH LLP

7$47 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. OA 93720

17. "Cause" has no clear definition and is determined on a case-by-case basis. Tucson

Estates, Inc.^ 912 F.2d 1162, 1166 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). Granting or denying relief

from stay is a matter ofthe court's discretion and often involves consideration numerous factors. In

re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 799 (Bankr. D. Utah 1984); In re Kronemyer, 405 B.R. 915, 921 (9th Cir.

BAP 2009). The Ninth Circuit in Tucson Estates set forth the following factors for a bankruptcy

court to consider when deciding whether to abstain from exercising jurisdiction:

a. the effect or lack thereof on the efficient administration ofthe estate ifa Court

recommends abstention;

b. the extent to which state law issues predominate over bankruptcy issues;

c. the difficulty or unsettled nature ofthe applicable law;

d. the presence of a related proceeding commenced in state court or other

nonbankruptcy court;

e. the jurisdictional basis, if any, other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334;

f. the degree of relatedness or remoteness of the proceeding with the main

bankruptcy case;

g.

h.

the substance rather than form of an asserted "core" proceeding;

the feasibility of severing state law claims from core bankruptcy matters to

allow judgments to be entered in state court with enforcement left to the bankruptcy court;

i. the burden of[the bankruptcy court's] docket;

j. the likelihood that the commencement ofthe proceeding in bankruptcy court

involves forum shopping by one ofthe parties;

k. the existence of a right to a jury trial; and

1. the presence in the proceeding ofnondebtor parties.

Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d at 1166-67 (quoting In re Republic Reader's Serv., Inc., 81 B.R. 422,429

(Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1987)).

///

///

///

S CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 5

of 8
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

McCormick, Barstow,

Sheppard, WAYTE &

Carruth LLP

7M7 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

18. Bankruptcy courts regularly grant relieffrom stay to permit litigation to be concluded

in another forum, particularly ifthe nonbankruptcy suit involves multiple parties or is ready for trial.

See, In re Castlerock Properties, 781 F.2d 159 (9th Cir. 1986) and PackerlandPacking Co., Inc. v.

Griffith Brokerage Co. (Jn re S. Kemble), 776 F.2d 802 (9th Cir. 1985).

19. "Where a bankruptcy court may abstain from deciding issues in favor ofan imminent

state court trial involving the same issues, cause may exist for lifting the stay as to the state court

trial." Tucson Estates, 912 F.2d at 1166. Moreover, the legislative history of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1)

states that "a desire to permit an action to proceed to completion in another tribunal may provide []

cause" for relief from a stay. H.R. No. 595, 95''^ Cong., Sess. 343, 1977 U.S. Code Cong. &

Admin. News 5787, 630.

20. According to the court in Curtis, "[t]he most important factor in determining whether

to grant relieffrom the automatic stay to permit litigation against the debtor in another forum is the

effect ofsuch litigation on the administration ofthe estate." In re Curtis, 40 B.R. at 806. Courts in

the Ninth Circuit have granted relief from the stay under § 362(d)(1) when necessary to permit

pending litigation to be concluded in another forum "ifthe non-bankruptcy suit involves multiple

parties or is ready for trial." Plumberex, 311 B.R. at 556.

IV. ARGUMENT

21. The following Tucson Estates factors weigh in favor of permissive abstention and

establish "cause" for the granting ofrelieffrom stay to proceed with the State Court Action:

a. Effect on Administration ofthe Estate ifCourt Abstains: Granting relieffrom

stay to permit the State Court Action to liquidate Movants' claims against the PG&E, Hot Line and

Hodges will permit Movant's claim against the PG&E to be liquidated. Abstention therefore would

facilitate the administration ofthe estate. This factor weighs in favor of permissive abstention.

b. Extent to Which State Law Issues Predominate: All of Movants' claims

against PG&E, Hot Line and Hodges are based on State law (e.g.. Trespass, Nuisance, Negligence

and Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage). This factor weighs in favor of

permissive abstention.

///

CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 6

of 8
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

mcCormick, BARSTOW,

Shepparo, WAYTE &

CARRUTH LLP

7847 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO. CA 93720

c. Difficulty or Unsettled Nature ofApplicable Law: The State law underlying

the claims in the State Court Action is not particularly unsettled or difficult. This factor weighs

against favor permissive abstention.

d. Presence of Pending Related Proceeding: The State Court Action has been

pending in the Monterey County Superior Court since January 18, 2018. While expert witness

reports have been prepared, discovery has not been completed. This factor weighs in favor of

permissive abstention or is neutral..

e. The Jurisdictional Basis Other than 28 U.S.C. § 1334: The only basis for

jurisdiction appears to be 28 U.S.C. § 1334. This factor weighs in favor of permissive abstention.

f. Degree of Relatedness or Remoteness of the Proceeding to the Bankruptcy

Case: Resolution ofthe State Court Action would liquidate Movant's claim against PG&E, PG&E's

indemnity claim against Hot Line, Hot Line's cross-claim against Hodges and Hodges cross-claims

against PG&E and Hot Line (once Movants obtain relieffrom stay in the Hodges bankruptcy case).

This factor weighs in favor ofpermissive abstention.

g. Substance ofthe Asserted Core Proceeding: Movants have filed their Claim

and, therefore, the Court has "core" jurisdiction to resolve the Claim under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(B).

This factor weights against permissive abstention.

h. Feasibility of Severing State Claims from Core Bankruptcy Matters: Since

Movants have filed their Claim, The Court has "core" jurisdiction and, therefore, this factor is

inapplicable.

i. Burden ofBankruptcy Court's Docket: Lifting the automatic stay to permit

the State Court to liquidate the Movants' Claims and the cross claims by and against PG&E and

non-Debtor parties would likely eliminate this Court having to liquidate claims against and on behalf

ofthe Debtor and claims against and on behalfofnon-debtor third parties over which the Court does

not have jurisdiction. This factor weights in favor ofpermissive abstention.

j. Likelihood of Forum Shopping: This factor is inapplicable.

k. Existence ofRight to Jurv Trial: All parties have requested a jury trial. This

factor weighs in favor of permissive abstention since the Court cannot conduct a jury trial over the

7 CaseNo. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 7

of 8
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

McCormick, Barstow,

Shepparo, Wayte &

Carruth LLP

7647 NORTH FRESNO STREET

FRESNO, CA U720

objection ofthe non-Debtor parties, even ifthe filing of the Claim by Movants has resulted in the

waiver its right to a jury trial. Langenkamp v. Culp, 498 U.S. 42, 111 S.Ct. 330, 112 L.Ed. 2d 343

(1990). This factor weights in favor of permissive abstention.

1. Presence ofNon-Debtor Parties in Related Proceedings: There are two nondebtor defendants named in the State Court Action, Top Line and Hodges. This factor weighs in

favor of permissive abstention.

22. On balance, the Tucson Estates factors favor discretionary abstention.

V. CONCLUSION

Based on the forgoing and for good cause, Movants respectfully request this Court enter an

order: (a) granting relief from PG&E's plan injunction so that it can resume liquidating its claims

against PG&E, Hot Line and Hodges in the Monterey County Superior Court, but not enforce the

Claim against PG&E other than accepting the treatment proposed by the PG&E Plan and/or any

recovery from PG&E's insurance carrier(s).

Dated: October 11,2022

By:

McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD,

WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP

Hagop T. Bedoyan

Attorneys for Scott and Charlyse Raven

Case No. 19-30088-DM Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13076 Filed: 10/14/22 Entered: 10/14/22 10:50:56 Page 8

of 8