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

Dario de Ghetaldi – Bar No. 126782 

Amanda L. Riddle – Bar No. 215221 

Steven M. Berki – Bar No. 245426 

Sumble Manzoor – Bar No. 301704 

COREY, LUZAICH, 

DE GHETALDI & RIDDLE LLP 

700 El Camino Real 

P.O. Box 669 

Millbrae, CA 94030-0669 

Telephone: (650) 871-5666 

Facsimile: (650) 871-4144 

deg@coreylaw.com 

alr@coreylaw.com 

smb@coreylaw.com 

sm@coreylaw.com 

Michael S. Danko – Bar No. 111359 

Kristine K. Meredith – Bar No. 158243 

Shawn R. Miller – Bar No. 238447 

DANKO MEREDITH 

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 145 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: (650) 453-3600 

Facsimile: (650) 394-8672 

mdanko@dankolaw.com 

kmeredith@dankolaw.com 

smiller@dankolaw.com 

Eric Gibbs – Bar No. 178658 

Dylan Hughes – Bar No. 209113 

GIBBS LAW GROUP 

505 14th Street, Suite 1110 

Oakland, CA 94612 

Telephone: (510) 350-9700 

Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 

ehg@classlawgroup.com 

dsh@classlawgroup.com 

Attorneys for Fire Victim Claimants 

Barbara Thompson and Raymond Breitenstein 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re 

PG&E CORPORATION and 

PACIFIC 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. 19-30088 (DM)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Bankruptcy Case 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

Chapter 11 

(Lead Case) 

(Jointly Administered)

JOINDER IN MOTION OF OFFICIAL 

COMMITTEE OF TORT CLAIMANTS 

FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC 

STAY TO PERMIT STATE COURT 

JURY TRIAL OF 2017 TUBBS 

WILDFIRE CLAIMS 

(Docket Nos. 2842-2851) 

Date: July 24, 2019 

Time: 9:30 a.m. 

 Place: United States Bankruptcy Court 

 Courtroom 17, 16th Floor 

 San Francisco, CA 94102 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2861 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 16:52:45 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

I. INTRODUCTION 

Fire Victim Claimants Barbara Thompson and Raymond Breitenstein are two of the eight 

victims of the 2017 Tubbs Fire for which the Official Committee of Tort Claimants (the “TCC”) has 

moved for an order terminating the automatic stay to allow those eight victims to proceed to trial 

against Debtors on their claims arising out of the Tubbs Fire and to request that the Coordination Trial 

Judge in the California North Bay Fire Cases, JCCP 4955 (the “Coordinated Action”), to order the 

eight victims’ cases to trial with preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 36 (the 

“TCC Motion”). 

Fire Victim Claimants Barbara Thompson and Raymond Breitenstein are parties of record in 

the Coordinated Action and in this pending Chapter 11 proceeding. They are represented by the firms 

of Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle LLP, Danko Meredith, and Gibbs Law Group in both of 

those matters. 

Fire Victim Claimants John Thompson, Matthew Thompson, Peter Thompson, and Stephen 

Breitenstein are also parties of record in the Coordinated Action and in this pending Chapter 11 

proceeding. They are also represented by the firms of Corey, Luzaich, de Ghetaldi & Riddle LLP, 

Danko Meredith, and Gibbs Law Group in both of those matters. They are not among the eight victims 

identified in the TCC Motion. 

For the reasons set forth below, Barbara Thompson, John Thompson, Matthew Thompson, 

Peter Thompson, Raymond Breitenstein, and Stephen Breitenstein hereby join in the TCC Motion and 

respectfully request that this Court grant the relief from automatic stay as requested in that motion. 

II. JOINDER OF BARBARA THOMPSON AND RAYMOND BREITENSTEIN 

Fire Victim Claimants Barbara Thompson and Raymond Breitenstein join in the TCC Motion 

for relief from the automatic stay to allow them to: (a) file a motion in the Coordinated Action for 

trial preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 36 based on their age and health 

conditions; and (b) proceed to a jury trial in the California Superior Court on their claims against 

Debtors arising out of the Tubbs Fire. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2861 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 16:52:45 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

The TCC Motion sets forth the reasons why this Court should lift the automatic stay. Barbara 

Thompson and Raymond Breitenstein qualify for mandatory trial preference in the Coordinated Action 

under California Code of Civil Procedure § 36(a) that provides:

“(a) A party to a civil action who is over 70 years of age may petition the court for a 

preference, which the court shall grant if the court makes both of the following findings: 

 “(1) The party has a substantial interest in the action as a whole. 

“(2) The health of the party is such that a preference is necessary to prevent 

prejudicing the party's interest in the litigation.” 

As more fully set forth in the TCC Motion, Ms. Thompson is 97 years old and Mr. Breitenstein 

is 89 years old. Both have a substantial interest in the action as a whole, and both have health issues 

such that preference is necessary to prevent prejudicing their interests in the litigation. 

“[A]s a matter of statutory construction section 36 must be deemed to be mandatory and 

absolute in its application if plaintiffs qualify under subdivision (a) thereof.” Koch-Ash v. Superior 

Court, 180 Cal.App.3d 689, 694, 225 Cal. Rptr. 657 (Ct. App. 1986). 

“The clear intent of the Legislature is to safeguard litigants who qualify under subdivision (a) 

of section 36 against the acknowledged risk that death or incapacity might deprive them of the 

opportunity to have their case effectively tried and to obtain the appropriate recovery. [Citation.]” 

Swaithes v. Superior Court, 212 Cal.App.3d 1082, 1085, 261 Cal. Rptr. 41 (Ct. App. 1989). “Such a 

preference is not only necessary to assure a party's peace of mind that he or she will live to see a 

particular dispute brought to resolution but it can also have substantive consequences. The party’s 

presence and ability to testify in person and/or assist counsel may be critical to success. In addition, 

the nature of the ultimate recovery can be adversely affected by a plaintiff’s death prior to judgment. 

[Citation.]” Looney v. Superior Court (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 521, 532, 20 Cal. Rptr. 2d 182 (Ct. App.

1993). 

In sum, “Elderly litigants are clearly entitled to have their case effectively tried and to the 

opportunity to enjoy during their own lifetime any benefits received.” Swaithes, supra, 212 

Cal.App.3d at p. 1086. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2861 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 16:52:45 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

III. JOINDER OF JOHN THOMPSON, MATTHEW THOMPSON, PETER THOMPSON, 

AND STEPHEN BREITENSTEIN 

John Thompson, Matthew Thompson, Peter Thompson are the sons of Barbara Thompson and 

are tenants-in-common with her as co-owners of the 102-acre real property located at 9960 Franz 

Valley School Road, Calistoga, that was devastated by the Tubbs Fire. 

Stephen Breitenstein is the only son and heir of Raymond Breitenstein and was living with and 

caring for his father at his father’s residence on the 30-acres located at 9501 Franz Valley School 

Road, Calistoga, that was devasted by the Tubbs Fire. Stephen and Raymond Breitenstein were forced 

to flee the fire at 11:30 p.m. on October 8, 2017, in the dark. Stephen Breitenstein lost personal 

property and has claims for, inter alia, mental anguish and nuisance as a result of the Tubbs Fire. 

Along with their parents, Fire Victim Claimants John Thompson, Matthew Thompson, Peter 

Thompson, and Stephen Breitenstein hereby join in the TCC’s Motion for relief from automatic stay. 

While they are not over 70 years old and do not have debilitating health issues, they are all 

indispensable parties under California Code of Civil Procedure § 389 whose joinder in their parents’ 

preference trial would be compulsory should the Coordination Trial Court grant the anticipated 

preference motion brought by Barbara Thompson, Raymond Breitenstein, and six others. 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 389(a) provides: 

“(a) A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive 

the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party 

in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those 

already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so 

situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter 

impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons 

already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise 

inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, 

the court shall order that he be made a party.” 

Mssrs. Thompson and Breitenstein all have substantial interests relating to the subject of the 

proposed preference trial as joint owners of real and personal property and, in the case of the 

Breitensteins, substantially similar nuisance and zone of danger claims as well as parallel claims for 

negligent infliction of emotional distress. Failure to allow them to join in the preference motion will 

both impair and impede those interests and may subject Debtors to a substantial risk of inconsistent 

obligations. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2861 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 16:52:45 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

The discretionary joinder of parties with related claims in a preference action is specifically 

permitted by California Code of Civil Procedure § 36(e) that provides: “Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, the court may in its discretion grant a motion for preference that is supported by a 

showing that satisfies the court that the interests of justice will be served by granting this preference.” 

IV. CONCLUSION 

For all of the foregoing reasons, Barbara Thompson, John Thompson, Matthew Thompson, 

Peter Thompson, Raymond Breitenstein, and Stephen Breitenstein respectfully request that this Court 

grant the motion for relief from the automatic stay to allow them to: (a) file a motion for trial 

preference pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 36 in the San Francisco Superior Court; 

and (b) proceed to a jury trial in San Francisco County Superior Court on their claims arising out ot 

the 2017 Tubbs Fire. 

DATED: July 2, 2019 Respectfully submitted, 

COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI & RIDDLE LLP 

By: 

Dario de Ghetaldi 

Amanda L. Riddle 

Steven Berki 

Sumble Manzoor 

Attorneys for Indivisual Fire Victim Creditors 

DANKO MEREDITH

Michael S. Danko 

Kristine K. Meredith 

Shawn R. Miller 

Attorneys for Individual Fire Victim Creditors 

GIBBS LAW GROUP

Eric Gibbs 

Dylan Hughes 

Attorneys for Individual Fire Victim Creditors 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2861 Filed: 07/03/19 Entered: 07/03/19 16:52:45 Page 5 of

5