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 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ALLOW LATE CLAIMS AND 

DROPPING HEARING FROM CALENDAR 

I. Introduction 

On April 7, 2023, Creditors Logan Bringsjord, Kendra 

Bringsjord, Niels Bringsjord, Dianne S. Gingerich and Mathew 

Ricca (“Movants”) filed their Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. 

Proc. 7015 and 7017 to Enlarge Time to File Proof of Claim 

Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. Proc. 9006(b)(1) (“Late Claim 

________________________________________

DENNIS MONTALI

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

Signed and Filed: May 2, 2023

Entered on Docket 

May 02, 2023

EDWARD J. EMMONS, CLERK 

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13691 Filed: 05/02/23 Entered: 05/02/23 14:20:40 Page 1

of 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

Motion”) (Dkt. 13658) and set a hearing on the Late Claim Motion 

for May 9, 2023. On April 13, 2023, Cathy Yanni, in her 

capacity as the Fire Victim Trustee (“Trustee”), filed an 

Objection to the Late Claim Motion (Dkt. 13668). 

For the reasons explained below, the court sustains the 

Trustee’s Objection, denies the Late Claim Motion, and drops the 

scheduled hearing on the Motion from its May 9, 2023 calendar. 

II. Discussion

A bankruptcy court may, on motion of a claimant filed after 

the applicable deadline, deem a late claim to be timely filed if 

the delay “was the result of excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Bankr. 

Pro. 9006(b)(1). The decision regarding whether a late claim 

was the result of excusable neglect “is at bottom an equitable 

one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding 

the party’s omission.” Pioneer Inv. Services Co. v. Brunswick 

Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 395 (1993). 

Circumstances include “the danger of prejudice to the debtor, 

the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial 

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. The court may weigh each of

these factors in its discretion. 

Neither the Trustee nor the court doubt the Movants’ good 

faith. The court considers the remaining Pioneer factors below 

and incorporates in this Order its reasoning from its previous 

Orders Denying Motions to File Late Claims (Dkts. 13377 and 

13490) (“Orders Denying Motions”). 

-2-

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13691 Filed: 05/02/23 Entered: 05/02/23 14:20:40 Page 2

of 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

First, the court finds that granting the Late Claim Motion 

would prejudice the FVT.1 According to the Trustee, the FVT 

simply is not fully funded, the stock contributed to the FVT by

the Debtors is not performing as well as expected (despite 

recent increases in value), and there may not be enough money in 

the Trust to administer 100% payments to Wildfire Claimants who

timely filed proofs of claim, let alone those requesting to have 

their late claims deemed timely now. The FVT may also be 

prejudiced by the additional expenditures of time and effort 

required of the FVT and its administrators to recalculate the 

projections and calculations made to ensure an equal pro rata 

distribution to all Wildfire Claimants, including those already

partially paid. Taking the Late Claim Motion in aggregate with

the large number of similar motions made in the past, and may be 

made in the future, the impact on administration is more than de 

minimis and would prejudice the FVT. 

Next, the court finds that the Movants have not described 

circumstances that would explain why the failure to file a claim 

for over two and a half years constitutes excusable neglect. 

The Movants acknowledge both notice of the Debtors’ bankruptcy 

and Claims Bar Dates. Instead, the Movants argue that the 

stress of temporary or permanent displacement, a lack of 

1 The Movants here focus only on the potential prejudice to the 

Debtors. As noted in the court's previous Orders Denying 

Motions, the FVT is the representative of each of the Debtors’ 

estates and is responsible for administering, objecting to, and 

settling the claims of Wildfire Claimants pursuant to the 

Paragraph 18(e)(iii) of the court’s Confirmation Order (Dkt. 

8053), and is thus the proper party to consider regarding 

prejudice under the Pioneer factors. 

-3-

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13691 Filed: 05/02/23 Entered: 05/02/23 14:20:40 Page 3

of 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

-4-

awareness that their particular damages could be compensated, or 

a lack of guidance due to age all constitute excusable neglect. 

The court reiterates, as it explained in its prior Orders 

Denying Motions, that the Debtors engaged in a comprehensive 

campaign to provide notice to Wildfire Claimants in the North 

Bay, California, and across the United States. The Debtors 

could not control whether Movants chose not to believe or to 

heed those notices, nor was it the Debtors’ duty to ensure every 

known and unknown Wildfire Claimant’s full understanding of 

every type of injury that could be compensated via the proof of

claim process. It also does not appear there was a widespread 

misunderstanding regarding what types of injury could be 

compensated via a proof of claim: every type of injury described 

in the Late Claim Motion is listed as a checkbox on the Proof of 

Claim form for Wildfire Claimants, and all were listed as 

injuries by Wildfire Claimants of all ages who timely filed 

proofs of claim. 

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the court hereby SUSTAINS the

Trustee’s Objection and DENIES the Late Claim Motion. The 

Proofs of Claim associated with the Late Claim Motion shall not

be deemed timely filed and are thus disallowed. 

 No purpose would be served by proceeding with the May 9, 

2023 hearing as Movants have presented nothing new that might 

alter the outcome. The Motion is DROPPED from the calendar. 

**END OF ORDER** 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13691 Filed: 05/02/23 Entered: 05/02/23 14:20:40 Page 4

of 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

-5-

COURT SERVICE LIST 

ECF Recipients 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 13691 Filed: 05/02/23 Entered: 05/02/23 14:20:40 Page 5

of 5