In the Matter of Alexa Nikolas

Defendant, within 30 days of notice of the Court's orders.

Further, the Court has reviewed and considered proposed Orders lodged on August 5, 2026, and finds the proposed Order to contain superfluous details and commentary which the Court will not endorse.

As such, the Court orders Defendant to lodge and serve a proposed Order, which conforms to the ruling and is narrowly drawn, on or before September 18, 2026.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court's order and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED: September 9, 2026 ______/s/_____________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court

DEPARTMENT | 207 | HEARING DATE | September 9, 2026 | CASE NUMBER |

| APPLICATIONS | Verified Applications to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice | APPLICANTS | (1) Thomas C. Holler (2) Mitchell W. Blasio | OPPOSING PARTY | none |

APPLICATIONS Thomas C. Holler and Mitchell W. Blasio (collectively, "Counsels)" apply to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Alexa Nikolas.

The applications are unopposed.

ANALYSIS California Rules of Court rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of the application fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

The application must state: (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member of 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 member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

The Verified Applications provide the required information.

Further, the applications indicate the application fees were paid.

Further, the proofs of service indicate counsel for Defendant were served electronically and the State Bar was served by mail at its San Francisco office, consistent with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c), which provides: "A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1), emphasis added.)

CONCLUSION AND ORDER Finding Counsels have satisfied all procedural and substantive requirements, the Court grants Counsels' unopposed verified applications to appear pro hac vice in this action.

Counsels shall provide notice of the Court's ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED: September 9, 2026 ______/s/_____________________ Michael E. Whitaker Judge of the Superior Court Case Number: 26SMCV02765 Hearing Date: September 9, 2026 Dept: 207 TENTATIVE RULING DEPARTMENT | 207 | HEARING DATE | September 9, 2026 | CASE NUMBER | 26SMCV02765 | MOTION | Preserve Evidence | MOVING PARTY | Plaintiff Alanna Zabel | OPPOSING PARTY | none |

MOTION This case arises from allegations that Plaintiff was injured when she was unknowingly served a cup of scalding hot water.

On May 20, 2026, Plaintiff Alanna Zabel ("Plaintiff") filed suit against Defendant Co-opportunity Market "Co-opportunity Consumers Cooperative, Inc." ("Defendant") alleging four causes of action for (1) negligence; (2) premises liability; (3) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; and (4) negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Plaintiff personally served Defendant with a copy of the summons and complaint on June 5, 2026, and default was entered against Defendant on July 16, 2026.