DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-01577688·orange·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

Pham vs. Solar Mosaic LLC

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Sep 4, 2026
Department
C12
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffPham
DefendantSolar Mosaic LLC
DefendantConcord Servicing LLC

Attorneys

Ruling

Superior Court of the State of California County of Orange

Hon. ANDRE MANSSOURIAN Department C12 – (657) 622-5212

TENTATIVE RULINGS Court will make every effort to post tentative rulings by approximately 3:00 p.m. on the court day before the date the motion is to be heard.

If the parties agree to submit on the Court’s tentative ruling, please call Department C12 directly to inform the court that all parties submit to the Court’s tentative ruling.

Reminder: Court does NOT provide court reporters.

No filings or briefs of any kind will be accepted after the tentative ruling is posted.

Parties are welcome to be present in court for the law and motion calendar or appear by Zoom. To make an appearance via Zoom please click the following link. If you are unable to log in, please call the department for an alternative arrangement. https://www.occourts.org/civil-remotehearings.

September 4, 2026 # Case Name Tentative

1. Pham vs. Solar Mosaic Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice LLC The application of attorney Sargina M. Desargones to appear pro hac 26-01577688 vice as counsel for defendant Concord Servicing LLC in this matter is hereby GRANTED, pending proof of payment of the application fee to the California State Bar, by September 21, 2026.

Moving Attorney failed to attach proof of payment of the application fee to the State Bar. (CRC, Rule 9.40.)

Moving Attorney to give notice.

THIS RULING IS FINAL.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share