1 DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI ISO OPPOSITION TO 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM – SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,

INC. (POC #368) (120TH OMNIBUS OBJ)

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

JOHNNY D. KNADLER (SBN 220942) 

LAW OFFICE OF JOHNNY D. KNADLER 

280 Summergrove Cir. 

Roseville, CA 95678 

Telephone: (310) 564-6695 

Email: SPM.PGE@gmail.com 

Attorney for Creditor 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E Corporation, 

- and – 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

Debtor 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

Judge: Hon. Dennis Montali 

Date: May 24, 2023 

Time: 10:00 a.m. 

Courtroom: (Tele/Videoconf. Appearance) 

United States Bankruptcy Court 

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

San Francisco, CA 94102

DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM –

SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. (POC #368)

(ONE HUNDRED TWENTIETH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS – NO LIABILITY CLAIMS )

I, Javad Mirsaidi, do hereby declare: 

1. I am the President of Synergy Project Management, Inc. (“SPM”), a creditor of 

the debtor and reorganized debtor Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“PG&E”). I have personal 

knowledge of the matters stated herein except as to those matters stated on information and 

belief, and as to those matters, I am informed and believe them to be true. If called as a witness, 

I could and would testify as to those facts. 

2. This declaration is made in support of the OPPOSITION TO OBJECTION TO CLAIM –

SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT, INC. (POC #368) filed concurrently herewith. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13719-1 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 14:28:46 Page 1

of 5
 2 DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI ISO OPPOSITION TO 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM – SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,

INC. (POC #368) (120TH OMNIBUS OBJ)

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. The City and County of San Francisco (“City”) and PG&E have had a long 

history of working together given PG&E’s status as a utility provider. As a result, multiple 

agreements, local ordinances, and state regulations have existed that regulated PG&E’s conduct 

as a utility.

4. In December 1939, the City’s Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance No. 413, 

which granted PG&E its rights to install gas lines as a utility (“Franchise Agreement”). A copy 

of the Franchise Agreement is attached as Exhibit “A”. Pursuant to Section 7, “The grantee 

shall (a) construct, install and maintain all pipes and appurtenances in conformity with all the 

lawful ordinances, rules and regulations heretofore or hereafter adopted by the Board of 

Supervisors, or other legislative body of the city, in the exercise of the police powers of the city.” 

5. Government Code 4216 establishes the 811 protocol where excavators are 

required to contact utilities prior to digging. Utilities are to mark their facilities and excavators 

are to work around them. This generally sets forth requirements for how accurate the utility 

markings have to be to allow excavators to find said utilities. Failure to comply would result in 

liability to the other party. Related to this, Order No. 176,707 issued by the City covers 

“Regulations for Excavating and Restoring Streets in San Francisco.” This generally sets forth 

the code requirements for underground utilities (i.e., markings and how far deep it needs to be). 

6. Given the numerous underground utilities installed by various utilities throughout 

the decades, the City has entered into multiple Support and Work-Around Agreements to address 

how the City and its contractors are to treat encounters with various crossings and the mitigation 

or relocation of such lines. 

7. In 2015, SPM was a subcontractor of Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. to the PAVEMENT 

RENOVATION, SEWER REPLACEMENT, AND WATER MAIN INSTALLATION – HAIGHT STREET AND 

HAYES STREET project (“Haight Project”) issued by the City. Pursuant to General Condition 

4.02 on Subcontractual Relations, all subcontractors are bound by the Project Manual. A true and 

correct copy of Volume 1 of the Haight Project is attached as Exhibit “B”. 

8. The Haight Project itself has numerous provisions regarding underground utilities. 

Section 00 73 20 covers “Existing Utility Facilities” and any special requirements for utilities 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13719-1 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 14:28:46 Page 2

of 5
 3 DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI ISO OPPOSITION TO 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM – SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,

INC. (POC #368) (120TH OMNIBUS OBJ)

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

encountered by contractors while performing the work. Subsection 1.1.B explicitly states “The 

Utility Crossings Specifications is based on agreements with non-governmental agencies for 

removal, support and relocation of privately-owned utility facilities.” Meanwhile, Subsection D 

states, “For Work which physically conflicts with existing non-City owned utilities that were not 

indicated in the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall seek reimbursement for additional cost 

incurred from the non-City Utility Operator.” Second, Section 00 73 21 covers “Support, Work 

Around, and Protect Existing Utility Company Facilities-General Specifications.” To the extent 

a workaround would have been required, this section would have governed the applicable 

reimbursement rates and reimbursements. 

9. PG&E was required to mark and bury all of its underground gas lines in 

accordance with regulations so that contractors would avoid striking its lines. PG&E failed to do 

so. SPM struck five PG&E lines which disrupted construction and local businesses. Due to the 

number of strikes, the City had SPM removed from the Haight Project. PG&E denied all 

wrongdoing and blamed SPM for all of the strikes. On May 9, 2017, PG&E denied all of SPM’s 

claims for costs incurred due to the strikes. Copies of the denied claims are attached as Exhibit 

“C”. SPM requested an explanation and received none. 

10. On July 10, 2017, SPM filed suit in San Francisco Superior Court, case CGC-17-

560034, against the City and DOES 1-10 for various torts relating to being wrongfully removed 

from the Haight Project and being effectively barred from future work. A copy of the lawsuit is 

attached as Exhibit “D”. After SPM amended its complaint to add federal claims, the City had 

the claim removed to federal court around November 27, 2017. 

11. In 2019, SPM received from the City several reports on the Haight Project. This 

was after years of protracted delays in the production of documents. The scheduling order in 

federal court did not allow for discovery until 2019. Even then the City delayed its responses. 

Ultimately, SPM had to do a public records request for some of the information that the City 

ultimately turned over. The information regarding PG&E’s knowledge was concerning. For 

example, in the August 27, 2015 strike, SPM crews were removing the surface asphalt when they 

struck a gas line that was located about 11 inches from the surface, while the asphalt itself was 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13719-1 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 14:28:46 Page 3

of 5
 4 DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI ISO OPPOSITION TO 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM – SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,

INC. (POC #368) (120TH OMNIBUS OBJ)

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

about 10 inches thick. This was inconsistent with regulations that require underground utilities 

to be buried at least 24 inches from the surface, which made striking the surface unavoidable. 

However, evidence showed PG&E’s own assessment that “The damaged gas line was 

determined to be approximately 8-9 inches deep.” In an email dated September 1, 2015, the City 

assessed the situation as “PG&E representatives have confirmed the shallow installation of their 

gas line and are not holding the contractor responsible for this incident.” Evidence of the August 

27 strike are attached as Exhibit “E”. Nonetheless, PG&E had denied SPM’s claim on May 9, 

2017. PG&E and the City jointly concealed evidence that would have exonerated SPM’s work 

on the Haight Project, denied SPM any compensation, and allowed SPM’s business to be ruined 

as a city contractor. Until that evidence was turned over, SPM did not have any hard evidence of 

PG&E’s deceitful conduct. 

12. Prior to the City turning over evidence, SPM’s only other hint of fraudulent 

conduct was from the California Public Utilities Commission (“CPUC”)’s ORDER INSTITUTING 

INVESTIGATION AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE ON THE COMMISSION’S OWN MOTION INTO THE 

OPERATIONS AND PRACTICES OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY WITH RESPECT TO 

LOCATE AND MARK PRACTICES AND RELATED MATTERS (I.18-12-007) (“OII”) in December 

2018. The crux of the investigation was whether or not PG&E’s locate and mark program of 

natural gas facilities violated various legal requirements. This was based on a report from the 

CPUC’s Safety and Enforcement Division’s report of various violations. However, that was 

primarily focused on the submission of tickets related to the Locate and Mark program and not 

the actual investigations themselves. In 2020, the CPUC adopted D.20-02-36, where the parties 

settled and agreed as part of the findings of fact: “4. PG&E’s top management was often 

unaware of problems with PG&E’s Locate and Mark program, even though PG&E staff was 

aware of the problems. 5. Even when it became aware of problems with its Locate and Mark 

program, PG&E’s top management failed to resolve the problems.” This Court approved the 

settlement on April 24, 2020, docket entry 6932. 

13. SPM is concurrently filing an amended claim to provide additional details for the 

timeliness of its claim. SPM is not changing the amount of its claim at this time as PG&E 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13719-1 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 14:28:46 Page 4

of 5
 5 DECLARATION OF JAVAD MIRSAIDI ISO OPPOSITION TO 

OBJECTION TO CLAIM – SYNERGY PROJECT MANAGEMENT,

INC. (POC #368) (120TH OMNIBUS OBJ)

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

objected on an absolute no-liability basis. 

I declare the foregoing to be true under penalty of perjury. Executed on May 9, 2023 in 

the City and County of San Francisco, State of California. 

 ____________________ 

 Javad Mirsaidi 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13719-1 Filed: 05/10/23 Entered: 05/10/23 14:28:46 Page 5

of 5