Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV15849, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15849    Hearing Date: October 30, 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

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff Vanessa Mesia-Ullrich (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against The Arden, LLC and Does 1 to 10 for negligence and premises liability.

Proposed Intervenor Oak River Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, seeks a Court order granting leave to file a complaint-in-intervention in this action on grounds that Plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of her employment with St. James’ Episcopal School when she was injured. As St. James’ Episcopal School’s workers’ compensation benefits provider and the party responsible for paying Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation benefits, Proposed Intervenor argues it is entitled to intervene in this action. 

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, Oak River Insurance Company asserts it insured Plaintiff’s employer and as a result, is obligated to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff for the subject incident. (Johnson Decl. ¶ 2–3.) Plaintiff was working within the course and scope of her employment during the incident.

Accordingly, the Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Oak River Insurance Company’s motion to intervene is GRANTED.

Oak River Insurance Company is ordered to file and serve its Complaint-in-Intervention within 10 days.

Oak River Insurance Company to provide notice and file a proof of service of such.