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

David W. Wessel, Esq. Bar # 115222

service@efronlawfirm.com

LAW OFFICES OF BORIS E. EFRON

130 Portola Road

Portola Valley, CA 94028-7825

Telephone: (650) 851-8880

Facsimile: (650) 851-3001

Attorneys for Creditors

MARINA GELMAN and MIKHAIL GELMAN

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re:

PG&E CORPORATION,

-andPACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

Debtors.

 Affects PG&E Corporation

☒ Affects Pacific Gas and Electric Company

 Affects both Debtors

* All papers shall be filed in the Lead Case,

No. 19-3008 (DM).

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11

(Lead Case - Jointly Administered)

MARINA AND MIKHAIL GELMAN'S 

SUPPLEMENT TO THEIR MOTION FOR 

RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC STAY AND 

ABSTENTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 

1334(c)(1); OBJECTION TO THE 

BANKRUPTCY COURT ADJUDICATING 

MOVANTS’ PERSONAL INJURY 

CLAIMS

Date: September 10, 2019

Time: 9:30 a.m.

Ctrm: Hon. Dennis Montali

450 Golden Gate Avenue

16th Floor, Courtroom 17

San Francisco, CA 94102

Reply Deadline: September 5, 2019

At 4:00 Pacific Time

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3617 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:10:13 Page 1 of

3
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

Cause exists to grant Mikhail Gelman and Marina Gelman relief from stay to prosecute their 

claims resulting from PG&E’s negligence to a just resolution. Here a speedy resolution is essential 

to a just resolution. Mikhail Gelman is 77, and he will be 78 in less than three months. He was born 

in Russia on November 6, 1941. (See Declaration of David W. Wessel [”Wessel Declaration”]

submitted in support of the Gelmans’ Supplement to their Motion for Relief from Automatic Stay.) 

Mikhail Gelman is in poor health. (See Wessel Declaration.)

Mr. Gelman is one of the two plaintiffs in Gelman v. Pacific Gas & Electric Company in the 

San Francisco County Superior Court. Therefore he has a substantial interest in the action. He is 

entitled to statutory preference pursuant to state procedural law. See Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 36 

(West). On his petition for preference, should it meet the standards set out in C.C.P § 36, the San 

Francisco County Superior Court must set the case for trial no more than 120 days after granting the

petition. A trial in the Superior Court action is likely to commence in an expeditious fashion once 

the preference determination has been made. Thus, the interest of judicial economy and an 

expeditious determination will be served by granting relief from stay.

This Superior Court litigation will not interfere with the bankruptcy case. The Superior Court 

is well suited for dealing efficiently and economically with the Gelmans’ proceeding, which consists 

entirely of state law issues. There is nothing to show that other creditors would be prejudiced if relief 

were granted to Mikhail Gelman and Marina Gelman. They filed their action in January, 2017, prior 

to the bankruptcy filing. Much of the pretrial activity has been completed. The Gelmans’ 

depositions have been taken. Marina Gelman has undergone a physical examination. The trial was 

set previously, continued once, and then continued again until December, 2019. The Gelmans’ action 

was on schedule for resolution by the end of this year, and could still be resolved by year end if this 

Court were simply to let it happen.

This Court in its May 12, 2019 Memorandum Decision on the Gelmans’ motion for relief 

from stay said that nothing prevents the Gelmans from severing their action and proceeding 

separately against the other defendants. However, the risk of inconsistent outcomes prevents the 

Gelmans from doing that. Defendants City and County and Blue Plantain would point the finger at 

PG&E in the Superior Court trial, and PG&E would point the finger at the City & County and Blue 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3617 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:10:13 Page 2 of

3
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

Plantain in the District Court trial. The cost of two trials and the risk of inconsistent verdicts is 

prohibitive.

Allowing Mikhail and Marina Gelman to proceed to trial in the Superior Court would resolve 

the Gelmans’ claims which have been pending since January 2017. It would advance the goals of 

this bankruptcy far better than a stayed, stagnant proceeding. It would help with the imperfect 

method of estimating claims that must be done by the Bankruptcy Court. As the Gelmans have 

already explained in their moving papers, the factors set out in In re Curtis, 40 B.R. 795, 800 (Bankr. 

D.Utah 1984) (the “Curtis factors”) weigh heavily in favor of relief from stay. In its Memorandum 

Decision on the Gelmans’ motion the Court stated it was satisfied the Gelmans had shown prima 

facie cause for relief from stay. The Gelmans have now shown that because of Mikhail Gelman’s 

age and health, he is entitled to preference in the Superior Court action. The Court earlier stated the 

Gelmans’ motion was a close call. With this showing it is no longer close. Justice requires the 

Gelmans be granted relief from stay.

Dated: August 20, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF BORIS E. EFRON

 /s/ David W. Wessel

Attorneys for Creditors

Marina Gelman and Mikhail Gelman

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3617 Filed: 08/20/19 Entered: 08/20/19 15:10:13 Page 3 of

3