1 

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

RICHARD A. MARSHACK, #107291 

rmarshack@marshackhays.com 

LAILA MASUD, #311731 

lmasud@marshackhays.com 

MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

870 Roosevelt 

Irvine, California 92620 

Telephone: (949) 333-7777 

Facsimile: (949) 333-7778 

Gerald Singleton, SBN 208783 

Gary LoCurto, SBN 270372 

SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 

591 Camino del la Reina, Ste. 1025 

San Diego, CA 92108 

Tel: (619) 333-7479 

Email: gsingleton@singletonschreiber.com 

 glocurto@singletonschreiber.com 

Attorneys for SLF Fire Victim Claimants 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION, 

 and 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY 

 Debtors 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case–Jointly Administered) 

CONSOLIDATED MOTION TO 

ALLOW/DEEM TIMELY LATE FILING 

OF PROOFS OF CLAIM BY: 

(1) FRANK ROGER LANELLI; 

(2) MARK FRY & CATHIE 

STEWART; and 

(3) CHERYL LYNN 

HUTCHINSON & THOMAS 

EARVIN BEARD; 

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 

AUTHORITIES; DECLARATION OF 

ALICIA ZIMMERMAN IN SUPPORT 

Hearing: Only if requested 

Location: Via Zoom or Telephone 

FVT Objection Deadline: 

 On or before October 13, 2022 

Affects: 

 PG&E Corporation 

 Pacific Gas & Electric Company 

 Both Debtors 

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case, 

 No. 19-30088 (DM). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 1

of 10
2 

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

TO THE HONORABLE DENNIS MONTALI, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

JUDGE, THE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, AND ALL INTERESTED 

PARTIES: 

The Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”)1 and Marshack Hays LLP, together with several other 

firms, represent thousands of victims (“SLF Claimants”) of the fires started by PG&E in 2015 

(“Butte Fire”), 2017 (the twenty fires generally referred to as the “North Bay” and “Wind Complex 

Fires”), 2018 (“Camp Fire”) and 2019 (“Kincade Fire” and “LaFayette Fire”). 

Singleton Schreiber respectfully files this consolidated motion on behalf of: (1) Frank Roger 

Lanelli; (2) Mark Fry and Cathie Stewart; and (3) Cheryl Lynn Hutchinson and Thomas Earvin 

Beard (collectively referred to as “Movants” or “Claimants”) to deem timely late filed proofs of 

claim (“Motion”). 

This Motion is brought pursuant to the Court’s Order Consolidating Motions to File Late 

Claims entered on August 24, 2022 as Docket No. 12875 (“Order 1”), Order Re: Supplemental 

Exhibit to Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims entered on September 1, 2022 as Docket 

No. 12923 (“Order 2”), and Revised Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims entered on 

September 28, 2022 as Docket No. 13010 (“Order 3”) (collectively referred to as “Consolidation 

Orders”). 

Pursuant to the Consolidation Orders and in accordance with the procedures set forth 

therein, the First Victim Trust (“FVT”) must either (a) file any opposition it has to any specific 

Claimants set forth herein within fourteen (14) days of the filing of this Motion or (b) submit an 

order to the Court including any specific Claimants set forth herein as having had their proofs of 

claim deemed “timely.” 

I. Summary of Argument 

A proof of claim may be deemed timely upon a showing of excusable neglect and lack of 

prejudice. In this case, due to a variety of stressors arising from the North Bay Fires and being 

unaware of the lawsuit against PG&E until recently, Movants were unable to timely file proofs of 

1

 Now known as Singleton Schreiber LLP (“Singleton Schreiber”). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 2

of 10
3 

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

claim. Because there is no danger of prejudice to the Debtors as Debtors’ estates are solvent, and all 

creditors stand to be paid, the Motion should be granted to allow these survivors to have their claims 

deemed timely. This Court must determine whether to grant the Motion. Attached hereto as Exhibit 

“1” is a brief statement for circumstances for each Movant. 

II. Pertinent Bankruptcy Background 

On January 29, 2019, PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (“Debtors” 

or “PG&E”) commenced with the Court voluntary cases (“Chapter 11 Cases”) under chapter 11 of 

the United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code”). PG&E’s chapter 11 filings were necessitated by a 

confluence of factors resulting from catastrophic fires that occurred in Northern California prior to 

the Petition Date, and PG&E’s potential liabilities arising therefrom. 

The deadline for filing proofs of claim with respect to any prepetition claim including, but 

not limited to, all claims of Fire Claimants, Wildfire Subrogation Claimants, Governmental Units 

and Customers, and for the avoidance of doubt, including all secured claims and priority claims, 

against either of the Debtors was October 21, 2019, at 5:00 p.m. (“General Bar Date”). 

The deadline for filing claims was extended to December 31, 2019 (“Extended Bar Date”), 

solely for the benefit of any non-governmental Fire Claimants who did not file Proofs of Claim by 

the General Bar Date. See, Dk. No. 4672. 

On January 31, 2020, as Dk. No. 5590, Debtors filed an Amended Chapter 11 Plan Debtors' 

and Shareholder Proponents' Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated January 31, 2020 

On February 7, 2020, as Dk. No. 5700, the Debtors filed a Disclosure Statement for the 

Amended Plan. 

On February 19, 2020, as Dk. No. 5835, the Debtors filed Motion for Entry of an Order (I) 

Approving Form and Manner of Notice of Hearing on Proposed Disclosure Statement; (II) 

Establishing and Approving Plan Solicitation and Voting Procedures; (III) Approving Forms of 

Ballots, Solicitation Packages, and Related Notices; and (IV) Granting Related Relief (“Solicitation 

Procedures Motion”). 

On March 17, 2020, the Solicitations Procedures Motion was approved. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 3

of 10
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

After filing multiple iterations of the plan, on June 19, 2020, as Dk. No 8048, the Debtors 

filed an Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization dated June 19, 2020 (“Final Plan”). 

 On June 20, 2020, post-voting and hotly contested confirmation hearings, the bankruptcy 

court entered an order confirming the Final Plan. See, Dk. No. 8053. 

 On August 24, 2022, the Court entered its Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims, 

outlining the procedure for future motions to deem timely late filed proofs of claim. See, Dk. No. 

12875. On September 1, 2022, the Court entered its Order Re: Supplemental Exhibit to Order 

Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims. See, Dk. No. 12923. On September 28, 2022, the Court 

entered its Revised Order Consolidating Motions to File Late Claims. See, Dk. No. 13010. It is 

pursuant to these Orders that Singleton Schreiber files this Motion. The Claimants herein are 

survivors of the North Bay Fires which occurred in October 2017 and have claims for damages 

arising from that fire. 

III. Legal Argument 

In a Chapter 11 case, the time to file a proof of claim may be extended under certain 

circumstances. Fed. R. Bank. Pro. 3003(c)(3); Fed. R. Bank. Pro. 9006(b)(1). The bankruptcy court 

has “broad equitable powers” in a Chapter 11 case with respect to the timing requirement for proofs 

of claim. Pioneer Inventory Services v. Brunswick Associates Limited Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 

389 (1993). All in all, Rule 9006(b)(1) allows “late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or 

carelessness, not just those caused by intervening circumstances beyond the party's control.” Id., at 

381. Even a creditor that did in fact receive notice may file a proof of claim notwithstanding the 

expiration of a claims bar date in a Chapter 11 case upon a showing of “excusable neglect.” Id. at 

394-95 (“Had respondents here been prevented from complying with the bar date by an act of God 

or some other circumstance beyond their control, the Bankruptcy Court plainly would have been 

permitted to find ‘excusable neglect’ [under FRBP 9006].”). 

In considering whether a creditor’s failure was the product of “excusable neglect,” the court 

should take “account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party’s omission,” including “the 

danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 4

of 10
5 

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

proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the 

movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith.” Id. at 395; see also Corning v. Corning (In re 

Zilog, Inc.), 450 F.3d 996 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting Pioneer’s non-exhaustive list of relevant factors). 

Again, a late-filed proof of claim is allowable where a creditor had actual notice of the bankruptcy 

but, due to some external reason, failed to file a proof of claim or did not realize that she had to, 

before the bar date. See, e.g., ZiLOG, Inc. v. Corning (In re ZiLOG, Inc.), 450 F.3d 996, 1003-07 

(9th Cir. 2006) (applying the Pioneer factors). All in all, Rule 9006(b)(1) allows “late filings caused 

by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, not just those caused by intervening circumstances beyond 

the party's control.” Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 381. Here, consideration of all four Pioneer factors—as 

well as a fifth engrafted onto the Pioneer analysis by some courts—weighs in favor of Movants.

Because in this case there is no danger of prejudice to the Debtors, the first Pioneer factor 

weighs overwhelmingly in Movants’ favor. Debtor’s estates are solvent, and creditors stand to be 

paid. See, e.g., In re Best Payphones, Inc., 523 B.R. 54, 75-6 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015) and In re 

Sheehan Mem’l Hosp., 507 B.R. 802, 803 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 2014) (where the chapter 11 estate is 

solvent, “the proper remedy for a late filing is not the expungement of a claim, but its allowance as a 

tardily filed claim only.). Secondly, immediately upon receiving all the necessary information, the 

Claimants’ proofs of claim were filed. Thirdly, the delay in filing the Claimants’ proofs of claim is 

reasonable considering immediately upon becoming aware of the damages that arose from the North 

Bay Fires, Singleton Schreiber was retained in this matter and proofs of claim were filed by 

Singleton Schreiber on behalf of the Claimants. The Movants’ factual circumstances and reasons for 

delay in filing their proofs of claim are detailed in in the attached Exhibit “1.” Lastly, any prospect 

of prejudice beyond solvency is unlikely given (a) all distributions have not yet been made; and (b) 

the value of Movants claims relative to the value of Debtors’ estates is low. See, e.g., In re Keene 

Corp., 188 B.R. 903, 910 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1995) (size of the late claim in relation to the estate is a 

consideration in determining prejudice). 

IV. Conclusion 

For the reasons set forth above, Movants respectfully request that this Court enter an order 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 5

of 10
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

pursuant to Rule 9006(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure as follows: 

1. Granting the Motion;

2. Finding that proofs of claim filed by Movants are to be allowed as having been timely 

filed;

3. Granting such other or further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: September 29, 2022 MARSHACK HAYS LLP 

 

By: /s/ Laila Masud

RICHARD A. MARSHACK 

LAILA MASUD 

Attorneys for SLF CLAIMANTS 

Dated: September 29, 2022 SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP 

 

By: /s/ Gerald Singleton

GERALD SINGLETON 

GARY LOCURTO 

Attorneys for the SINGLETON LAW 

FIRM FIRE VICTIM CLAIMANTS 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 6

of 10
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

Declaration of Alicia Zimmerman 

I, ALICIA ZIMMERMAN, say and declare as follows: 

1. I am an individual over 18 years of age and competent to make this Declaration.

2. If called upon to do so, I could and would competently testify as to the facts set forth

in this Declaration. The facts set forth below are true of my personal knowledge or through 

information collected by my staff from: (1) Frank Roger Lanelli; (2) Mark Fry and Cathie Stewart; 

and (3) Cheryl Lynn Hutchinson and Thomas Earvin Beard (collectively referred to as “Movants” or 

“Claimants”). I am an attorney with Singleton Schreiber LLP2, and I make this declaration in support 

of the Consolidated Motion to Allow/Deem Timely Late Filing of Proofs of Claim (“Motion”). 

3. Movants are listed in the attached Exhibit “1” with a brief statement as to each of

their particular circumstances. 

4. Wherefore, Singleton Schreiber now brings this Motion to have the Subject Proof of

Claim deemed timely. 

 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Executed on September ___, 2022. 

ALICIA ZIMMERMAN

4892-1617-9764, v. 2

2

 Previously Singleton Law Firm (“SLF”). 

29

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 7

of 10
EXHIBIT “1” 

 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 8

of 10
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 

EXHIBIT “1”: CLAIMANTS AND STATEMENTS 

EXHIBIT 1 

(1) Lanelli, Frank Roger; Proof of Claim No. 108984; Filed September 16, 2022

At the time of the North Bay Fires, Mr. Lanelli owned and resided at real property located

at 2821 San Joaquin Avenue, Clearlake Park, California 95424. Prior to August 2022, when Mr. 

Lanelli reached out to Singleton Schreiber for potential representation, he had been unaware of 

the lawsuit against PG&E. Due to multiple traumas, relocation, and the immense pressure on 

Claimant to reestablish his life, Singleton Schreiber did not become aware of this claim until after 

the relevant bar dates. 

(2) Fry, Mark & Stewart, Cathie; Proof of Claim No. 108960; Filed September 16, 2022

At the time of the North Bay Fires, Mr. Fry owned and resided at real property located at

3067 3rd Street, Clearlake, California 95422. Ms. Stewart also resided at this same real property. 

Prior to July 2022, when Mr. Fry reached out to Singleton Schreiber for potential representation, 

he and Ms. Stewart had been unaware of the lawsuit against PG&E. Due to multiple traumas, 

relocation, and the immense pressure on Claimants to reestablish their lives, Singleton Schreiber 

did not become aware of these claims until after the relevant bar dates. 

(3) Hutchinson, Cheryl Lynn & Beard, Thomas Earvin; Proof of Claim No. 108967;

Filed on September 16, 2022

At the time of the North Bay Fires, Ms. Hutchinson owned and resided at real property 

located at 13680 Eastlake Drive, Clearlake, California 95422. Additionally, Ms. Hutchinson 

owned real property at 13665 Eastlake Drive, Clearlake, California 8422. It was at this location 

that Mr. Beard resided. There are two houses with two separate numbers on the same parcel of 

property. Prior to August 2022, when Ms. Hutchinson reached out to Singleton Schreiber for 

potential representation, they had been unaware of the lawsuit against PG&E. Due to multiple 

traumas, relocation, and the immense pressure on Claimants to reestablish their lives, Singleton 

Schreiber did not become aware of these claims until after the relevant bar dates. 

4860-9096-5556, v. 1

EXHIBIT "1" 

PAGE 8

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 9

of 10
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 

[CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on September 29, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. 

Notice of this filing will be sent by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system to all parties 

indicated on the electronic filing receipt. Parties may access the filing through the Court’s filing 

system. 

Executed this 29th day of September 2022 at Irvine, California. 

/s/ Cynthia Bastida 

CYNTHIA BASTIDA 

4868-0125-2917, v. 1

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13021 Filed: 09/29/22 Entered: 09/29/22 20:19:40 Page 10

of 10