Unocal Pipeline Company v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., Conoco Phillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and Exonmobile Pipeline Co.

Opinion

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

Cause number: 01-15-00266-CV Style: Unocal Pipeline Co. v. BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc. and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Date motions filed*: September 3, 2015 Type of motions: Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed Parties filing motions: Appellees BP Pipelines (Alaska) Inc., ConocoPhillips Transportation Alaska, Inc., and ExxonMobil Pipeline Co. Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motions are:

 Granted  Denied  Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)  Other: _____________________________________ The motions to appear pro hac vice by non-resident attorneys Lara E. Romansic and Steven G. Reed are denied without prejudice to refiling with the required motions in support by a Texas resident attorney. See TEX. RULES GOVERN. BAR ADM’N, RULE XIX(b) (2015) (“The motion of the non-resident attorney seeking permission to participate in Texas proceedings must be accompanied by motion of the resident practicing Texas attorney with whom the non-resident attorney will be associated in the proceeding of a particular cause. . . .”).

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes 

Date: February 15, 2015

November 7, 2008 Revision