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

LAWRENCE A. JACOBSON, SBN 057393

SEAN M. JACOBSON, SBN 227241

COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

66 Bovet Road, Suite 285

San Mateo, CA 94402

Telephone: (650) 261-6280

laj@cohenandjacobson.com

Attorneys for Amir Shahmirza

(Agent for Komir, Inc.) and Komir, Inc.

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re

PG&E CORPORATION,

- and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC

COMPANY,

Debtors.

G Affects PG&E Corporation

G Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

O Affects both Debtors

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered)

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING

EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO

PG&E’S REPLY BRIEF

Date: May 9, 2023

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Place: (Tele/Videoconference Appearances

Only)

United States Bankruptcy Court

Courtroom 17, 16th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94102

Komir, Inc., (“Komir”) submits this Supplementary Evidentiary Objection, requests that the

Court consider this objection, and hereby objects to the purported evidentiary statements contained

in PG&E’s Reply to Opposition to Counter-Motion to the Objection (the “Reply”) at page 3, lines 1

through 6, and to substantive content of the document referenced therein. 

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PG&E’S REPLY BRIEF 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13682 Filed: 04/26/23 Entered: 04/26/23 14:25:04 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

Subject Matter of Objection:

“Again, the same surveyor who filed a declaration in support of Claimant’s Motion for

Summary Judgment acknowledged the existence of the PG&E Easements by attaching to its

response to PG&E’s Information Request a Chicago Title Plat Map dated March 18, 2018,

that expressly refers to the easements for Transmission Lines that traverse the Komir

Property. (Dkt. No. 12131-4, at 59.) Tellingly, Claimant fails to address this fact. This

admission by Claimant is fatal to Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and supports

PG&E’s Counter-Motion for Summary Judgment.” (Reply, page 3, lines 1 through 6)

Grounds of Objection:

1. The referenced document (Dkt. No. 12131-4, at 59), a plot map type drawing with

colored highlighting, is inadmissible for all purposes for the following reasons

relating to the form, content and presentation of the document:

(a) The document is not part of any Policy of title insurance, does not reflect any

insured interests, and is not recorded anywhere.

(b) The document disclaims its content as being any authoritative statement such

as attributed to the document by the Reply as the document contains a

disclaimer in small print in the lower left-hand corner as follows:

“This map/plat is being furnished as an aid in locating the herein

described land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries, and

other land, and is not a survey of the land depicted. Except to the extent

a policy of title insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any,

the Company does not insure dimensions, distances, location of

easements, acreage, or other matters shown thereon.” (Emphasis

supplied)

(c) The document is unauthenticated as none of the pleadings filed by PG&E

provides any foundation to satisfy the requirement that the document is what

proponent claims it to be and none of PG&E’s pleadings contain any

testimony as to the preparer of the documents or that person’s qualifications,

the manner of preparation, the reliability, or any other detail (Rule 901,

Federal Rules of Evidence).

(d) If and to the extent that PG&E refers to the document as expressing any expert

opinion, PG&E has not provided any foundation for use of the document as a

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PG&E’S REPLY BRIEF 2

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13682 Filed: 04/26/23 Entered: 04/26/23 14:25:04 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

statement of expert opinion as no evidence demonstrates any special

knowledge, skill, training or experience of the preparer, whoever that may

have been. (Rule 701, Federal Rules of Evidence).

(e) The document is not stamped by a surveyor, not approved by the County

Surveyor, and not eligible for recording.

(f) If and to the extent that the document would purport to be a survey, which it

disclaims, or to the extent that PG&E may be offering document as being a

survey, the document fails to conform with the requirements of the Land

Surveyor Act (California Business & Professions Code Sections 8726, 8761,

and 8762), including without limitation the lack of a Stamp by Licensed

Surveyor, and is therefor inadmissable as such.

2. The statement in the Reply mischaracterizes the evidence in that the Reply, while

acknowledging that the document was presented as an attachment to a report by

Surveyor Mahoney, argues that the inclusion of the (inadmissible) document that

references easements constitutes an admission of legal enforceability of easements

without disclosing the disclaimer by Surveyor Mahoney regarding inclusion which

states:

“NOTE: A folder containing a listing and reproduction of all documents and maps

utilized in the analysis for this Report on Title is submitted with this LAND

SURVEYOR'S REPORT ON TITLE FOR KOMIR, INC.”

Stated differently, contrary to the statement in the Reply, Surveyor Mahoney did not

attribute any significance to the document but only stated that he reviewed it as part of

a large compilation of materials that he evaluated in concluding that the Property is

not subject to any easements in favor of PG&E for transmission lines. Surveyor

Mahoney was never the proponent of the drawing for any substantive purpose; rather,

Mahoney and his partner prepared, and the County Surveyor approved, adopted, and

recorded Record of Survey No. 3259 and 3259-A as the County’s survey that

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PG&E’S REPLY BRIEF 3

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13682 Filed: 04/26/23 Entered: 04/26/23 14:25:04 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

indicates no easements for PG&E transmission lines. Surveyor Mahoney never

acknowledged or “admitted” the existence of PG&E easements.

Respectfully submitted.

Dated: April 26, 2023 COHEN AND JACOBSON, LLP

By: /s/ Lawrence A. Jacobson 

 Attorneys for Claimant

SUPPLEMENTAL PRE-HEARING EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS TO PG&E’S REPLY BRIEF 4

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13682 Filed: 04/26/23 Entered: 04/26/23 14:25:04 Page 4

of 4