Southern California Edison Company v. Energysolutions Services, Inc., et al.

LAURA BOURGEOIS LOBUE’S MOTION TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

 

MOVING PARTY: Laura Bourgeois Lobue

RESPONDING PARTY: None

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

Petitioner Southern California Edison Company brings this petition to compel Respondents EnergySolutions Services, Inc. and Hunt Construction Group, Inc. (collectively dba SO Decommissioning Solutions) to finish a pending arbitration proceeding. The matter is related to case no 24STCP02609, SO DecommissioningSolutions v. Southern California Edison Company, in which SO DecommissioningSolutions seeks to vacate the arbitration award. 

Attorney Laura Bourgeois Lobue now moves to be admitted Pro Hac Vice as counsel for SO DecommissioningSolutions. Plaintiff filed a limited opposition. 

TENTATIVE RULING:

Counsel Lobue’s Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in cases 24STCP02583 and 24STCP02609 is GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

DISCUSSION:

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

A. Legal Standard

California Rules of Court Rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon notice by mail to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of California, does not work in California, and does not perform regular or substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40).

The application must state: (1) The applicant's residence and office address;  (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;  (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts;  (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;  (5) The title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6)  The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)).

B. Application

Counsel Laura Bourgeois Lobue moves to be admitted pro hac vice in case 24STCP02583 and the related case 24STCP02609.

Based on the Application and attached Declaration, Counsel Laura Bourgeois Lobue is not employed or residing within California (Lobue Decl. ¶ 3, 4, 8); the application contains the necessary addresses (id.); the application has the proper admission information for other courts where the attorney is admitted (id. ¶¶ 5-7); and the attorney is in good standing in those jurisdictions (Id.) Counsel has appeared pro hac vice in California once in the last two years in the arbitration proceeding of So Decommissioning Solutions v. Southern California Edison Company, ADRS case no. 23-3046-JZ, before ADR Services, Inc. (Id. ¶ 10.)

Counsel Lobue is to be associated with local counsel Nathan M. Spatz. (Id. ¶ 2.). Counsel Spatz confirms payment of the mandatory application fee to the State Bar on Counsel Lobue’s behalf. (Spatz Decl. ¶ 4.)

Petitioner filed a limited opposition to the motion. Petitioner indicates that while it “does not oppose counsel’s application filed in Case No. 24STCP02583,” it does oppose the application “to the extent the Application claims it also applies to the related case.” Petitioner suggests that moving counsel needs to file a separate motion in the related case.

Petitioner is correct that technically speaking, any motion in cases that are only related—and not consolidated—needs to be filed in each separate action. Be that as it may, because the applications would involve identical parties and facts, judicial economy and convenience justifies treating the application as applying to each case. 

There, finding the requirements of Rule 9.40 satisfied, Counsel Lobue’s Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in cases 24STCP02583 and 24STCP02609 is GRANTED.

Moving counsel is ordered to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   October 1, 2024 ___________________________________