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

Page 1 of 4

ESTELA O. PINO, SBN 112975

PINO & ASSOCIATES

1520 Eureka Rd., Suite 101, 

Roseville, CA 95661

Telephone: (916) 641-2288

Facsimile: (916) 641-1888

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee appointed by the Superior Court of the State of

California, in and for the County of Alameda, in Case No. RG16843631 and related cases.

THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

IN AND FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

-andIn re:

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation

 Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 X Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the lead case, No.

19-30088(DM)

______________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case Nos. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11

 OBJECTION TO APPLICATION

PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) AND

FED. R. BANKR. P. 2014(a) AND 2016 FOR

ORDER AUTHORIZING THE DEBTORS

TO RETAIN COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY

& BASS LLP AS SPECIAL COUNSEL

NUNC PRO TUNC TO THE PETITION

DATE

DATE: July 9, 2019 

TIME: 9:30 A.M.

PLACE: Courtroom 17

450 Golden Gate Avenue, 16th Fl.

San Francisco, California

JUDGE: Hon. Dennis Montali

RELATED DOCKET NOS: 2595

The Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Ghost Ship Warehouse

Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee”), appointed by the Superior Court of the State of California, in

and for the County of Alameda, Case No. RG16843631 and related cases, party in interest in the

above-referenced Chapter 11 case, by and through its attorneys of record, does hereby respectfully

submits as follows in support of the within Objection to the Application Pursuant to 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2837 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:18:29 Page 1 of

4
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

Page 2 of 4

11 U.S.C. § 327(e) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) and 2016 for Order Authorizing the Debtors to

Retain Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass Llp as Special Counsel Nunc Pro Tunc to the Petition Date

(hereinafter referred to as the “Objection”). 

The Ghost Ship Warehouse Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee does hereby reserve the right to

join in and support any additional opposition(s) filed by creditors and other parties in interest to the

Application Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 327(e) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a) and 2016 for Order

Authorizing the Debtors to Retain Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass Llp as Special Counsel Nunc Pro

Tunc to the Petition Date (hereinafter referred to as the “Coblentz Employment Application”).

The Coblentz Employment Application discloses that Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP

(hereinafter referred to as the “Coblentz”) represents the City of Oakland in Gregory v. Chor Nar

Siu Ng, Case No. RG 16843631 (hereinafter referred to as Ghost Ship State Court Litigation”). The

Debtors are the co-defendants in the Ghost Ship State Court Litigation.

Coblentz also represents Wagner Family Wines-Caymus Vineyards (hereinafter referred to

as “Caymus”). Caymus is a member of the Official Committee of Tort Claimants. In addition,

numerous other connections have been disclosed with parties having or potentially having interest

adverse to the Debtors.

Neither the Coblentz Employment Application nor the declarations filed in support of the

Coblentz Employment Application, however, provide any evidence that Coblentz has complied

with Rule 1.7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.7 of the California Rules of

Professional Conduct provides as follows:

(a) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each client and 

compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if the representation is

directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter.

(b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each affected

client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a

significant risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially

limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationships with another client,

a former client or a third person,* or by the lawyer’s own interests.

(c) Even when a significant risk requiring a lawyer to comply with paragraph (b)

is not present, a lawyer shall not represent a client without written* 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2837 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:18:29 Page 2 of

4
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

Page 3 of 4

disclosure of the relationship to the client and compliance with paragraph (d)

where:

(1) the lawyer has, or knows* that another lawyer in the lawyer’s firm*

has, a legal, business, financial, professional, or personal relationship

with or responsibility to a party or witness in the same matter; or

(2) the lawyer knows* or reasonably should know* that another party’s

lawyer is a spouse, parent, child, or sibling of the lawyer, lives with

the lawyer, is a client of the lawyer or another lawyer in the lawyer’s

firm,* or has an intimate personal relationship with the lawyer.

(d) Representation is permitted under this rule only if the lawyer complies with

paragraphs (a), (b), and (c), and:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes* that the lawyer will be able to

provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one

client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same

litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

(e) For purposes of this rule, “matter” includes any judicial or other proceeding,

application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, transaction,

claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest, or other

deliberation, decision, or action that is focused on the interests of specific

persons,* or a discrete and identifiable class of persons.* 

In addition, the actual agreement with the Debtors within the Exhibit B to the Master

Services Agreement, entitled Attorney Representation Conflict Principles, attached along with the

Coblentz Employment Application, specifically provides as follows:

[l]imitation on adverse engagements during PG&E engagement: During any

engagement by PG&E, the retained attorney and his or her firm will not represent another

client in a matter in which that client’s interests are adverse to the interests of PG&E

without first making written disclosure of the proposed engagement and obtaining written

consent from the PG&E entity undertaking the engagement. Any actual or potential

conflict(s) pre-existing the engagement with PG&E must be disclosed prior to executing a

retainer agreement, or promptly upon discovery. Where pre-existing conflicts may exist,

counsel is expected to obtain waivers from its other clients, including written

agreements that such clients will not object to the attorney or firm representing PG&E

entities in any pending or future matter. Emphasis added.

Coblentz Employment Application and the declarations filed in support thereof are

completely devoid of any evidence reflecting that Coblentz has complied with the California Rules

of Professional Conduct and the Master Services Agreement with the Debtors, giving rise to serious

ethical issues. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2837 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:18:29 Page 3 of

4
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

Page 4 of 4

Based upon the failure of Coblentz to provide competent evidence of compliance with the

California Rules of Professional Conduct and the specific terms of the Master Services Agreement

with the Debtors, the Ghost Ship Warehouse Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee respectfully requests

that the Coblentz Employment Application, be denied!

Dated: July 2, 2019 Respectfully submitted,

PINO & ASSOCIATES

By: /s/Estela O. Pino___________________

 Estela O. Pino, Attorneys for the Ghost Ship Warehouse Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2837 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 16:18:29 Page 4 of

4