IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the below-named attorney(s) as follows:

!“Therun] ' AttorneyforPlaintiff .

Ifjoinder is permissible, the second step requires the Court to conduct a "fundamental fairness" analysis to "ascertain whether the balancing of certain relevant considerations weighs in favor ofjoinder and its necessarily attendant remand."

Case l:15-cv-09277-CM Document 14 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 6 Third, denying joinder could result in parallel litigations, as Plaintiff would be forced to pursue his claims against P.C. Richards in a separate action in state court.

The potential for consolidation is another factor that weighs in favor of remand, as it would allow plaintiffs in both cases to resolve all their claims against the Electrolux and P.C. Richards defendants in a single action.

Here, in his declaration in support of this motion, Plaintiffs counsel represents that his intention has always been to add P.C. Richards as a defendant and seek to consolidate this case with the related insurance litigation.

In Perez v. Paramount Communications, 92 N,Y.2d 749, 754-55 (1999), the New York Court of Appeals held that the filing of a motion to amend to add a defendant tolls the applicable statute of limitations for that claim.

Plaintiff, ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC. et at., 161202/2015 -against- INDEX No.: Defendants.

: Upon the foregoing papers, it is ORDERED that the motion is granted and the above-captioned action is consolidated .in this.

Court with HERMITAGE FNSURANCE COMPANY as subrogee of PAUL DURSTENBERG, et al. v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC, et al. Index No. 161202/2015, under Index No. 157809/2015, and the consolidated action shall bear the following caption:

as subrogee of PAUL DURSTENBERG, and AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. as claims administrator on behalf of HERMITAGE

consolidated action; and it is further, ORDERBD that movant is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on the County Clerk (Room 141 B) in accordance with the e-filing protocol, who shall consolidate the papers in the actions hereby consolidated and shall mark his records to reflect the consolidation; and it is further, ORDERED that movant is directed to serve a copy of this order with notice of entry on the Clerk of the Trial Support Office (Room 1 58) in accordance with the e-filmg protocol, who is hereby directed to mark the Court's records to reflect the consolidation.

COMPANY, as subrogee of PAUL DURSTENBERG, and AMTRUST FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC, as claims administrator on behalf of HERMITAGE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed affirmation of Steven Landy, Esq, affirmed on the 14th day of November, 2017 and the exhibits annexed thereto, and upon alt of the other pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, on the 1St day of December, 2017 at 9:30 o’clock in the forenoon, Plaintiff Paul Durstenberg, will move this Court, at the Courthouse of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York, located at 60 Centre Street, New York, New York 10007, Motion Submission Part, Room 130, for (i) a protective order pursuant to CPLR § 3103 extending Plaintiff’s time to comply with his discovery obiigations for at least ninety (90) days; (ii) a temporary stay of all proceedings for a period of at least ninety (90) days pursuant to CPLR § 2201; and (ii) such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 11/14/2017 PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to CPLR 2214(b) answering papers, if any, must be served upon the undersigned at least seven (7) days prior to the return date of this motion.

Steven Landy & Associates, P Attorneys for PlaintifiPaul Du stenberg 270 Madison Avenue - Suite 1400 New York, New York 10016 (212) 682—8510 20f3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 08:05 PM RaCaIVaD VYSCEF: 11/14/2017 T03 Burns, Russo, Tamigi, Reardon, LLP Jeffrey M. Burkhoff, Esq.

Law Office of Steven G. Fauth, LLC Attorneysfor Plaintiffin Action No. II Hermitage Insurance Company As Subrogee ofPaul Durstenberg 54 North Broadway Tarrytown, New York 10591 (914) 524—0900 3of3

However, despite this Finn’s significant efforts, this Firm has been unable to locate or communicate with Durstenberg. (We have repeatedly attempted to reach him by telephone and by sending his letters (some via FedEx) none of which ...

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 08:05 PM

numbered 1 to_ , were teed on this motion toifor Notice of MotionIOrder to Show Cause ....

lof3 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11m2017 08:05 PM

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between or among the attorneys named beiow as follows: «:5 a...) ’m G's-WW $3th ‘ (Sr mm 1% cw

On 0‘ \Ofl’a’ Plaintiffls) \0 r. 20E, a conference was held in this case.

Ifjoinder is permissible, the second step requires the Court to conduct a "fundamental fairness" analysis to "ascertain whether the balancing of certain relevant considerations weighs in favor ofjoinder and its necessarily attendant remand."

Case l:15-cv-09277-CM Document 14 Filed 02/23/16 Page 4 of 6 Third, denying joinder could result in parallel litigations, as Plaintiff would be forced to pursue his claims against P.C. Richards in a separate action in state court.

The potential for consolidation is another factor that weighs in favor of remand, as it would allow plaintiffs in both cases to resolve all their claims against the Electrolux and P.C. Richards defendants in a single action.

Here, in his declaration in support of this motion, Plaintiffs counsel represents that his intention has always been to add P.C. Richards as a defendant and seek to consolidate this case with the related insurance litigation.

In Perez v. Paramount Communications, 92 N,Y.2d 749, 754-55 (1999), the New York Court of Appeals held that the filing of a motion to amend to add a defendant tolls the applicable statute of limitations for that claim.