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- 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Reorganized 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).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088-DM 

Chapter 11 

Jointly Administered 

Hearing Held 

Date: March 7, 2023 

Time: 10:00 a.m 

Via video/teleconference 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

BY SPIRO JANNINGS 

 On January 13, 2022, the court signed an Order Disallowing 

and Expunging Claim No. 58462, Filed October 17, 2019, of Spiro 

Jannings (“Order Disallowing Claim”) (Dkt. 11829). On January 

26, 2022, Creditor Spiro Jannings (“Jannings”) filed the Motion 

for Relief From Order (“First Motion”) (Dkt. 11871) seeking to 

vacate the Order Disallowing Claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Signed and Filed: March 27, 2023

Entered on Docket 

March 27, 2023

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 1

of 6
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- 

60(b) or 59(e)(“Rule”), as applied to bankruptcy matters by Fed. 

R. Bankr. P. 9023 and 9024. On March 14, 2022, the court 

entered an Order Denying the Motion (“Order Denying 

Reconsideration”) (Dkt. 12009). 

 Ten months later, on January 13, 2023, Jannings filed the 

Claimant’s Omnibus Motion for Relief from Final Order, Motion 

for Relief from Stay, and Response to Reorganized Debtor’s 

Objection to Claim No. 58462, Filed October 17, 2019 (“Renewed 

Motion”) (Dkt. 13455). The Renewed Motion seeks to vacate the 

Order Disallowing Claim, nullify the Order Denying 

Reconsideration, and obtain relief from the discharge injunction 

to allow Jannings’ underlying disallowed claim against the 

Debtors continue apace in state court pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1) 

or (b)(3). For the reasons set forth below, the court will DENY 

the Renewed Motion. 

A motion for reconsideration of an allowed or disallowed 

claim may be filed pursuant to Rule 60 if the motion is “made 

within a reasonable time . . . no more than a year after the 

entry of the judgment or order or the date of the proceeding.” 

Rule 60(c). 

Whether a reconsideration motion has been filed in a 

reasonable amount of time “requires a case-by-case analysis. 

Such determination takes into consideration ‘the interest in 

finality, the reason for delay, the practical ability of the 

litigant to learn earlier of the grounds relied upon, and 

prejudice to other parties.’” In re Williams, 287 B.R. 787, 793 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Ashford v. Steuart, 657 F.2d 

1053, 1055 (9th Cir. 1981)). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 2

of 6
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- 

Here, Jannings waited exactly one year from the entry of 

the court’s Order Disallowing Claim to file the Renewed Motion. 

Jannings explains that he sought new counsel after the court’s 

entry of the Order Denying Consideration that was based in part 

of the inactions of his then-counsel, Scott Furstman and Michael 

St. James. However, Jannings was unable to find new counsel 

easily, and then the counsel he did hire, Mark Bostick, failed 

to timely file a motion for reconsideration. 

Jannings presents two different timelines of his travails. 

In the first timeline, found in the Renewed Motion, Jannings 

immediately sought new counsel in March 2022, “directly after 

this Court’s 3/14/22 Decision,” and eventually hired attorney 

Mark Bostick. Then, “Mr. Bostick failed to perform as agreed 

and fecklessly dragged Jannings along; representation ended 

01/12/23,” leaving Jannings with less than one day to file the 

Renewed Motion and accompanying Declaration. 

In the second timeline, found in Jannings’ Declaration in 

Support of Reply (Dkt. 13562), Jannings was not even aware of 

the Court’s Order Denying Reconsideration until a month after 

entry of the order, on April 14, 2022. After being advised to 

seek new counsel, Jannings spent a few weeks contacting firms 

but was repeatedly turned away. He chose to hire Mr. Bostick 

within weeks, and officially retained Mr. Bostick as counsel in 

July 2022 after due diligence was completed. Then around late 

November 2022, Jannings “became suspicious Mr. Bostick was not 

going to complete [the] agreement to file motions for vacating 

the January 13, 2022 order, and chose to proceed pro se.” 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 3

of 6
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- 

The story of each timeline is the same—Jannings’ delay in 

filing the Renewed Motion is reasonable because the counsel he 

hired as soon as he was able gave him the run-around until it 

was almost too late. However, in a matter in which the court 

must analyze timing, a discrepancy of a month or months on both 

the front and back-end on Jannings’ timelines is notable, along 

with the fact that Mr. St. James was counsel of record for 

Jannings until January 12, 2023. The court simply does not find 

Jannings shifting narrative to be credible. With such 

uncertainty surrounding the timeline, the court cannot conclude 

that the basis for the delay is reasonable. 

As for the other factors for determining whether a delay in 

filing a motion for reconsideration is reasonable, Reorganized 

Debtors have been able to rely on the court’s decision for more 

than 10 months, and while the court maintains that the prejudice 

to Reorganized Debtors in simply continuing state court 

litigation is minimal, there is an overriding interest in 

finality that prevails. The court does not weigh whether 

Jannings could have learned of the grounds for the Renewed 

Motion earlier, as his argument is that he learned of the need 

to file the Renewed Motion quickly, but the delay is not 

attributable to him. 

Much of the Renewed Motion is spent on the merits of 

Jannings’ underlying claim, and an argument that Reorganized 

Debtors committed fraud under Rule 60(b)(3) by presenting an 

incomplete narrative of Jannings’ underlying claim, which he 

hopes to challenge via an amended complaint in state court. The 

fraud or misrepresentation described in Rule 60(b)(3) is not 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 4

of 6
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- 

about the court, but about the movant who must show “an order 

was obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or other 

misconduct that prevented the losing party from fully and fairly 

representing its defense. Also, the fraud must not have been 

discoverable with the exercise of due diligence.” United Student 

Funds, Inc. v. Wylie (In re Wylie), 349 B.R. 204, 213 (B.A.P. 

9th Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). As the court has discussed 

at length, the only factor that prevented Jannings’ opposition 

to Reorganized Debtors’ request to disallow Jannings’ proof of 

claim was Jannings’ (through his former counsel’s) own failure 

to respond to the request, despite a three-month period to do 

so. The court finds no basis to reconsider its prior orders 

under Rule 60(b)(3). 

Accordingly, the Renewed Motion is DENIED. 

**END OF ORDER** 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 5

of 6
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- 

COURT SERVICE LIST 

Spiro Jannings 

1304 Shortridge Ave. Unit C 

San Jose, CA 95116 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13646 Filed: 03/27/23 Entered: 03/27/23 14:28:41 Page 6

of 6