Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

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

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP

Stephen Karotkin (pro hac vice) 

(stephen.karotkin@weil.com) 

Ray C. Schrock, P.C. (pro hac vice) 

(ray.schrock@weil.com) 

Jessica Liou (pro hac vice) 

(jessica.liou@weil.com) 

Matthew Goren (pro hac vice) 

(matthew.goren@weil.com) 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119 

Tel: 212 310 8000 

Fax: 212 310 8007 

KELLER & BENVENUTTI LLP 

Tobias S. Keller (#151445) 

(tkeller@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Peter J. Benvenutti (#60566) 

(pbenvenutti@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

Jane Kim (#298192) 

(jkim@kellerbenvenutti.com) 

650 California Street, Suite 1900 

San Francisco, CA 94108 

Tel: 415 496 6723 

Fax: 650 636 9251 

Attorneys for Debtors and Debtors in Possession 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION,

 - and - 

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC 

COMPANY,

Case No. 19-30088 (DM)

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) (Jointly Administered) 

DECLARATION OF JANA CONTRERAS ISO 

MOTION PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. P. 4001(d) 

TO APPROVE STIPULATION BETWEEN DEBTORS 

AND MICHAEL S. DANKO AND MARY S. DANKO 

FOR MODIFICTION OF AUTOMATIC STAY 

Objection Deadline: October 25, 2019 

 4:00 pm (Pacific Time) 

 

No hearing requested absent timely objection. If timely 

objection is filed, hearing reserved for:

Date: November 13, 2019 

Time: 10:00 a.m. (Pacific Time) 

Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102

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). 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4133 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 13:26:01 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

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

I, Jana Contreras, hereby declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 1746 

of title 28 of the United States Code that the following is true and correct to the best of my 

knowledge, information, and belief: 

1. I am attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am Counsel, 

Litigation at Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and am authorized to make this Declaration in that 

capacity. 

2. I file this Declaration in support of the Debtors’ Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 

4001(d) to Approve Stipulation Between Debtors and Michael S. Danko and Mary S. Danko for 

Modification of Automatic Stay (the “Motion”).1 Except as otherwise indicated, all statements in 

this Declaration are based on my personal knowledge, and, if called upon to do so, I could and 

would testify competently thereto. 

3. On or about October 19, 2018, the Dankos filed a complaint against the Debtors for 

trespass, nuisance, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief (the “Complaint”) in the Superior Court 

of California, County of San Mateo (the “Superior Court”), Case No. 18-CIV-05681 (the “San 

Mateo Action”). On or about December 10, 2018, the Debtors filed an answer to the Complaint and 

the Utility filed a cross-complaint (the “Cross-Complaint”) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief 

relating to the Utility’s enforcement of its easement across the Property. 

4. A case management conference was scheduled for February 28, 2019 (the “Case

Management Conference”). On January 31, 2019, the Debtors filed a Notice of Stay of 

Proceedings in the San Mateo Action based on these Chapter 11 Cases. On February 13, 2019, the 

Debtors filed a Case Management Conference Statement in the San Mateo Action, noting that the 

automatic stay applied only to the Complaint and requesting that the Superior Court consider and 

determine whether a stay of the Cross-Complaint also was appropriate. Without ruling regarding the 

automatic stay, the Superior Court took the Case Management Conference off calendar. 

5. The Debtors have determined that the continuation of the San Mateo Action is in the 

best interests of their estates. Accordingly, the Stipulation provides that the automatic stay shall be 

1

 Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Motion. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4133 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 13:26:01 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

27

28 Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153-0119

modified to permit the Dankos to litigate the Complaint against the Debtors in the Superior Court 

and to defend themselves against the Cross-Complaint. Furthermore, to the extent applicable, the 

Stipulation modifies the automatic stay to permit the Utility to continue to litigate the CrossComplaint and the Debtors to defend themselves against the Complaint. The Stipulation does not 

permit, and the automatic stay itself shall remain in effect with respect to, the enforcement by the 

Dankos of any judgment they may obtain in their favor in the San Mateo Action. 

6. The Utility must litigate its Complaint in the San Mateo Action in order to protect its 

business need to remove the Structures and the Incompatible Trees. 

7. The Complaint and Cross-Complaint relate to the same underlying issues and would 

involve the same or similar discovery and motion practice; accordingly, it would be inefficient to 

litigate only the Utility’s claims now and to relitigate the Dankos’ claims in this Court through the 

claims process. 

8. Absent the Stipulation, the Dankos can be expected to bring a motion to seek relief 

from stay to permit them to litigate their Complaint. The Debtors seek to avoid the time and expense 

associated with a contested motion for relief from the stay. 

9. Allowing the Dankos to litigate their action will not prejudice the Debtors’ estates or 

other creditors. The Stipulation provides material benefits to the Debtors and their estates at little 

cost, has been authorized by the Debtors in the exercise of their business judgment, and is in the best 

interest of the Debtors, their estates, and their creditors. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4133 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 13:26:01 Page 3 of

4
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4133 Filed: 10/04/19 Entered: 10/04/19 13:26:01 Page 4 of

4