Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV09001, Date: 2024-07-10 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV09001 Hearing Date: July 10, 2024 Dept: 32
PLEASE NOTE: Parties are
encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if
a resolution may be reached. If the
parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this
tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit. The email shall include the case number, date
and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the
identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling. If the Court does not receive an email
indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no
appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or
adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. If all parties do not submit on this
tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely. Further, after the
Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent
authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the
tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
TENTATIVE
RULING
|
DEPT: |
32 |
|
HEARING DATE: |
July
10, 2024 |
|
CASE NUMBER: |
23STCV09001 |
|
MOTIONS: |
Motion
for Leave to Intervene |
|
Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company |
|
|
OPPOSING PARTY: |
Unopposed
|
BACKGROUND
On April 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Keenan Conroy, Juan Delgado, Melissa
Cossio, and Juan Antonio Gutierrez (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against
Defendants Shannon Eileen Dufficy and Does 1 to 20 for negligence surrounding a
motor vehicle accident.
Prospective Intervenor Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company
(“Intervenor”) seeks a Court order granting leave to file a complaint-in-intervention
in this action. No opposition has been filed.
LEGAL
STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 387(d) states, “[t]he court shall,
upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding
if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) A provision of law
confers an unconditional right to intervene. (B) The person seeking
intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is
the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition
of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that
interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or
more of the existing parties.” (Code. Civ. Proc. § 387(d)(1).)
“Pursuant to section 387 the trial court has discretion to permit a
nonparty to intervene where the following factors are met: (1) the proper
procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate
interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the
litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by
the parties presently in the action.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior
Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.)
Labor Code sections 3852 and 3853 provide that an employer against
whom a claim for workers’ compensation damages was made may join in an action
against a third party arising out of the incident for which the workers’
compensation payment was made. (Lab.
Code, §§ 3852, 3853.) “[Labor Code]
[s]ection 3853 states that when an action is brought against a third party by
either the employer or the employee, ‘the other may, at any time before trial
on the facts, join as party plaintiff.’”
(Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 206 (quoting
Labor Code section 3853).) An employer includes the employer’s insurer. (Lab. Code, § 3850(b).)
DISCUSSION
Here, Intervenor asserts it insured Plaintiffs’
employer, Brea Glass and Mirror, Inc., and the underlying incident took place
within the scope of Plaintiffs’ employment. As a result, Intervenor has paid workers’
compensation benefits to Plaintiffs Juan Delgado, Keenan Conroy, and Juan
Gutierrez for the subject accident.[1] (Zaiderman
Decl. ¶ 2–4.) Intervenor has attached a proposed complaint-in-intervention. (Exh.
A.) No opposition has been filed.
Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
AND ORDER
Accordingly, Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company’s motion for leave
to intervene is GRANTED.
Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company is ordered to file and serve its
Complaint-in-Intervention within 10 days.
Falls Lake Fire and Casualty Company to provide notice and file a proof of
service of such.