Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00767/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00767-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 340
Nature of Suit: Marine Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 12:1819 Default of Promissory Note

---

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

07cv767

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL

SERVICES CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHARTER CONNECTION

CORPORATION, in Personam, PETE

TERREBONNE, in Personam, PAMELA

TERREBONNE, in Personam, and

BELLE AMIE, O.N. 1170780, its

Engines, Machinery, Appurtenances, etc.,

in Rem,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07cv767-L(NLS)

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION TO GRANT

PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION

On May 24, 2007, William D. De Voe, Esq., attorney admitted to practice and practicing

in Seattle, Washington, submitted a pro hac vice application, which was denied because Michael

A. Bracott, Esq., the counsel he designated as local counsel, does not maintain an office in this

district but in Seattle, Washington. On June 21, 2007, Mr. De Voe filed a motion to grant his

pro hac vice application. 

Mr. Barcott is Plaintiff’s counsel in this case. He is admitted to practice in this district

because he is a member of the State Bar of California. See Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(c)(1). Mr. De Voe

wants to be involved in this case along with Mr. Barcott due to his familiarity with the client, the

area of the law and proximity of his office to Mr. Barcott’s. 

/ / / / /

Case 3:07-cv-00767-L-NLS Document 40 Filed 06/25/07 Page 1 of 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

2 07cv767

The local rules of this district restrict the practice before this court to members of the bar

of this court. Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(c)(2). Since Mr. De Voe is not a member of the State Bar of 

California, he can not be admitted to the bar of this court. Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(c)(1)(a). “Practice”

for purposes of this rule, however, is limited to “enter[ing] appearances for a party, sign[ing]

stipulations, or receive[ing] payment or enter[ing] satisfaction of judgment, decree or order.” 

Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(b). In other respects, Mr. De Voe’s involvement in the case is not affected..

To the extent Mr. De Voe wants to practice before this court in the manner described in

Rule 83.3(b), he must seek permission to appear and participate in a particular case by filing a

pro hac vice application. Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(c)(5). In such cases, the application form calls for a

designation of local counsel. The judge assigned to the case may, in his or her discretion,

“require an attorney appearing in this court [pro hac vice] and who maintains an office outside of

this district to designate a member of the bar of this court who does maintain an office within

this district . . ..” Civ. Loc. R. 83.3(c)(6). Contrary to Mr. De Voe’s argument, the purpose of

this rule is to ensure ease of communication, service of papers and court appearances, as well as

familiarity with the practice in this court. Accordingly, the court declines to exercise its

discretion as requested.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion to grant pro hac vice application is DENIED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Mr. De Voe may resubmit his application designating a local

counsel as provided in Rule 83.3(c)(6).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 22, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. NITA L. STORMES

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00767-L-NLS Document 40 Filed 06/25/07 Page 2 of 2