In the Matter of 1457 Main Owner LP

from going forward on the trial date or will otherwise prejudice any party, and any past continuances of the trial date. (Code Civ. Proc., Sec. 2024.050, subd. (b).)

Defendants fail to address these factors in their motion. Instead, they argue Plaintiffs should have stipulated to their mental examinations prior to the discovery cut-off date. However, Plaintiffs were not required to do so. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 2032.310, a party which seeks to require another party to submit to a mental examination must obtain leave of court.

Defendants had ample opportunity to move for leave to conduct mental examinations prior to the discovery cut-off date, but they did not do so. As Defendants concede, they took Munoz's and Winfrey's depositions on October 12, 2022 and September 15, 2023, respectively. Defendants were on notice of Plaintiffs' claims of emotional distress no later than those dates, yet failed to diligently seek mental examinations. Filing a motion scheduled for hearing after the discovery cut-off date has passed itself is reflective of Defendants' failure to satisfy Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.050's requirements.

Accordingly, the motion is denied. Defendants are to give notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same.

DEPARTMENT | 415 | CASE NUMBER |

| MOTIONS | Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice | MOVING PARTIES | Attorneys Joshua L. Mallin, Daniel V. Carlisle, and Dennis T. D'Antonio | OPPOSING PARTY | None

| Attorneys Joshua L. Mallin ("Mallin"), Daniel V. Carlisle ("Carlisle"), and Dennis T. D'Antonio ("Antonio," collectively, "Counsel") move to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff 1457 Main Owner LP ("Plaintiff").

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a), attorneys who are licensed to practice and in good standing in other states may, upon court approval, appear as counsel pro hac vice in a pending case, if an active member of the State Bar of California also appears as counsel of record.

Mallin is licensed to practice and in good standing in New York and various federal courts. He resides in New York and has not appeared pro hac vice in California in the past two years.

Carlisle is licensed to practice and in good standing in New York and various federal courts. He resides in New York and has not appeared pro hac vice in California in the past two years.

D'Antonio is licensed to practice and in good standing in New York and various federal courts. He resides in Connecticut and has not appeared pro hac vice in California in the past two years. (See Declarations of Stacey L. Zill in Support of Applications for Pro Hac Vice Admission, separately filed March 5, 2026.)

Counsel are associated with Plaintiff's counsel, who is licensed to practice in California. (Zill Decls., P. 1.) Further, Counsel have demonstrated they served these applications on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office and paid the $50 fee, as required. (Id., P. 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c), (e).)

Accordingly, the applications are granted. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of the Court's ruling and to file proof of service of same. | Home -->)" -->