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

BROWN RUDNICK LLP 

David J. Molton (SBN 262075) 

(DMolton@brownrudnick.com) 

Seven Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

Telephone: (212) 209-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 209-4801 

BROWN RUDNICK LLP 

Joel S. Miliband (SBN 077438) 

(JMiliband@brownrudnick.com) 

2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor 

Irvine, California 92612 

Telephone: (949) 752-7100 

Facsimile: (949) 252-1514 

Attorneys for the Fire Victim Trustee 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

- and –

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY, 

Debtors. 

 Affects PG&E Corporation 

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

 Affects both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

No. 19-30088 (DM).

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered)

FIRE VICTIM TRUSTEE’S OBJECTION 

TO MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. 

BANKR. PROC. 7015 AND 7017 TO 

ENLARGE TIME TO FILE PROOF OF 

CLAIM PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. 

PROC. 900(6)(1)

[Relates to Docket Number 13658] 

Hearing Date: May 9, 2023 

Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Place: Hearing will be conducted telephonically or 

by video 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 1

of 7
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

1 

Cathy Yanni, in her capacity as the Trustee (the “Trustee”) of the Fire Victim Trust, by and 

through her undersigned counsel, hereby submits this Objection to the Motion to Pursuant To Fed. 

R. Bankr. Proc. 7015 Ans 7017 To Enlarge Time To File Proof Of Claim Pursuant To Fed. R. 

Bankr. Proc. 900(6)(1) [Docket No. 13658] (the “Motion”) filed on April 7, 2022 regarding three 

separate proofs of claim allegedly filed1 on behalf of Matthew Ricca, Dianne S. Gingerich, Niels 

Bringsjord, Kendra Bringsjord and Logan Bringsjord, (all claimants collectively, “Movants”). In 

support of this Objection, the Trustee respectfully states as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 

As an initial matter, the Trustee notes that the Motion fails to comply with the Order 

Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims (the “Consolidation Order”) [Docket No. 12875] 

although it consolidates three unrelated late-filed proofs of claim into a single motion. 

Nevertheless, this Objection is submitted in accordance with the Consolidation Order and the 

subsequent Order Re Supplemental Exhibit to Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims

[Docket No. 12923] and Revised Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims [Docket No. 

13010]. 

The Motion seeks to have the claims of five individual claimants deemed timely for the 

purpose of administration by the Trust with little concern for the Fire Victims who filed their 

proofs of claim more than three years before Movants. The Motion copies the same language used 

by prior late claim motions including the reason for the delay in filing their proofs of claim. As 

Movants’ claims of excusable neglect for their extremely long delays in filing their proofs of claim 

all are based on the fact that they did not know they should file proofs of claim until after the 

Extended Bar Date, the Court should deny the Motion for the reasons cited in the Court’s 

1

 While the Motion states that true and correct copies of proofs of claim filed on behalf of each 

of the Movants are attached as exhibits, the motion docketed as 13658 attaches only one proof of 

claim for the Bringsjord family. A review of the Kroll claims docket revealed a proof of claim 

filed on behalf of Mathew Ricca on April 6, 2023, but there is no record of a proof of claim on the 

Kroll claims docket for Dianne Gingerich as of April 12, 2023. A table of Movants’ proof of claim 

numbers and filing dates is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 2

of 7
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

2 

December 21, 2022 Amended Order Denying Motions to Allow Late Claims [Docket No. 13377] 

(the “Late Claim Order”). 

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

1. On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation (“PG&E Corp.”) and Pacific Gas and 

Electric Company (“Utility”), as debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, “PG&E” or the 

“Debtors”), commenced with the Court voluntary cases under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code 

(the “Chapter 11 Cases”). The Reorganized Debtors filed the Chapter 11 Cases to address the 

billions of dollars of damage and loss relating to the devastating 2015, 2017 and 2018 California 

fires and to provide compensation to wildfire victims. 

2. On March 14, 2019, the Debtors filed their schedules of assets and liabilities. By 

Order dated July 1, 2019, the Court established October 21, 2019 (the “Bar Date”) as the last date 

to file proofs of claim in the Chapter 11 Cases [Docket No. 2806] (the “Bar Date Order”). By 

Order dated November 11, 2019, the Court extended the Bar Date to December 31, 2019 (the 

“Extended Bar Date”) for unfiled, non-governmental Fire Claimants [Docket No. 4672]. 

3. As a result of the Court’s careful consideration of this issue and the thoughtful 

manner in which the Debtors redoubled their efforts to reach additional Fire Victims, more than 

82,000 claimants, some of whom suffered unfathomable losses, filed their claims in a timely 

manner. 

OBJECTION

4. Movants assert that their delays in filing their proofs of claim – three years and 96 

days after the Extended Bar Date – were “reasonable” because they did not discover they needed to 

file proofs of claim until after the Extended Bar Date and only recently contacted and retained 

counsel. As the Court noted in the Late Claim Order, “[d]ue process requires notice of the 

opportunity to file a claim. That was provided here and generally to thousands of Wildfire 

Claimants. Due process does not require the awareness of the type of claim that might have been 

filed.” Late Claim Order at 6:28-7:4. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 3

of 7
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

3 

Application of Pioneer Factors 

5. In Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, the Supreme 

Court applied the majority of what was then the Ninth Circuit test for determining whether a failure 

to timely file a proof of claim was due to excusable neglect: (1) whether granting the delay will 

prejudice the debtor; (2) the length of the delay and its impact on efficient court administration; (3) 

whether the delay was beyond the reasonable control of the person whose duty it was to perform; 

and (4) whether the creditor acted in good faith. Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 395, 113 S. Ct. at 1498. 

Deeming Movants’ Late Claims “Timely” Will Prejudice the Trust

6. The first consideration in determining whether a late claim filing was the result of 

“excusable neglect” under Pioneer is the danger of prejudice to the debtor. This factor is irrelevant 

in the present case with respect to the Debtors because the Trust has taken the place of the Debtors 

with respect to Fire Victim Claims. As noted in the Late Claim Order, “the impact on 

administration is more than de minimis and would prejudice the FVT.” Late Claim Order at 6:14-

15. 

The Length of Movants’ Delay is Extreme and Negatively Impacts Trust Administration 

7. The second consideration under Pioneer is the length of delay and its potential 

impact on judicial proceedings. Movants filed their proofs of claim 1,092 days after the Extended 

Bar Date2 yet claim that their well past three-year delays were “reasonable.” As noted above, the 

Trust has a limited fund from which to pay all Fire Victim Claims. As such, the Trust cannot 

finally determine how much it can pay on account of any Fire Victim Claim until it adjudicates 

every Fire Victim Claim. 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

/ / / 

2

 As noted above, there is no record of a proof of claim having been filed by or on behalf of Ms. 

Gingerich at this time. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 4

of 7
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

4 

8. As of March 31, 2023,3 the Trust had issued Determination Notices to 95% of all 

claimants who have submitted claims questionnaire to the Trust, awarding over $16 billion to these 

claimants. Nearly $9 billion has been paid to holders of Fire Victim Claims as of March 31, 2023. 

9. The continued addition of claims to the Fire Victim Trust prevents the Trust from 

allocating its limited funds and further extends the time that claimants who timely filed their Fire 

Victim Claims must wait for final payments, thus delaying the administration of Fire Victim 

Claims and prejudicing those who hold timely filed Fire Victim Claims with delay. The extreme 

length of Movants’ delay and the impact of a more than three-year filing delay on the final payment 

of timely filed Fire Victim Claims weighs heavily against deeming Movants’ claims timely. 

Timely Filing Proofs of Claim was not Beyond Movants’ Control 

10. The third Pioneer factor, whether the delay was beyond the late claimant’s control, 

also weighs against granting the relief requested in the Motions. As explained above, the Motion 

does not provide any basis for a finding of excusable neglect. The boiler plate statements used to 

describe Movants’ circumstances in the Motion fail to explain what prevented Movants from filing 

proofs of claim earlier. The third Pioneer factor therefore must also be decided in favor of the 

Trust and the Fire Victims who have made the effort to engage with the Trust. 

Even Without Bad Faith, Equity Does Not Favor Movants Over Other Fire Victims 

11. While the Trustee does not believe that Movants lack the good faith that comprises 

the final consideration listed by the Pioneer court, it is clear from the Motion that Movants were 

not prevented from filing timely claims by any circumstances. None of Movants’ neighbors who 

filed timely proof claims knew whether the Trust would compensate them for every claim they 

asserted against PG&E, yet they filed their claims before the Extended Bar Date. Many filed 

without the benefit of counsel to guide them through the process. The Motion fails to state any 

facts that justify Movants’ delays of well over three years in filing their proofs of claim. 

3

The latest statistics can be found on the Fire Victim Trust website at 

https://www.firevictimtrust.com. The Trust will update the program statistics again on or about 

April 15, 2023. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 5

of 7
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

5 

12. In addition, as is evidenced by overwhelming number of late claim motions filed 

over the last several months, allowing Movants’ proof of claim to be deemed timely filed without 

extenuating circumstances would encourage other latecomers to file similar motions. 

13. For the foregoing reasons, Movants fail to meet their burden for establishing 

“excusable neglect” for filing their proofs of claim nearly three years after the Extended Bar Date. 

Movants’ proofs of claim listed on Exhibit 1 hereto should not be deemed timely for the purpose of 

administration by the Trust. 

CONCLUSION

The Trustee respectfully requests that this Court deny the relief requested in the Motion and 

grant the Trust such other and further relief as may be just. 

DATED: April 13, 2023 BROWN RUDNICK LLP 

 By: /s/ DAVID J. MOLTON

 David J. Molton (SBN 262075) 

(DMolton@brownrudnick.com) 

Seven Times Square 

New York, New York 10036 

And 

Joel S. Miliband (SBN 077438) 

(JMiliband@brownrudnick.com) 

2211 Michelson Drive, Seventh Floor 

Irvine, California 92612 

Attorneys for Fire Victim Trustee

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 6

of 7
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

6 

EXHIBIT 1 

TABLE OF MOVANTS AND PROOFS OF CLAIM 

CLAIMANT(S) POC NUMBER DATE POC FILED 

Matthew Ricca 109868 April 6, 2023 

Niels Bringsjord 

Kendra Bringsjord 

Logan Bringsjord 

109869 April 6, 2023 

Dianne S. Gingerich No record of proof of claim No record of filing 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13668 Filed: 04/13/23 Entered: 04/13/23 10:15:58 Page 7

of 7