Judge: Colin Leis, Case: 24STCV04703, Date: 2025-03-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV04703    Hearing Date: March 18, 2025    Dept: 74

Morazan, Jr. v. Mcinnis et al.

Intervenor Infinity Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene

BACKGROUND 

This motion arises from a motor vehicle personal injury action.

Plaintiff Erick Morazan, Jr. (Plaintiff) filed a complaint against defendants Keith McInnis and RFG Construction, Inc. (collectively Defendants). 

Infinity Insurance Company (Intervenor) moves for leave to intervene.

LEGAL STANDARD

“The 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).) 

Additionally, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure §387(d)(2), the Court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene in litigation pending between others, provided “the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.”  Therefore, it must be shown that: (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest¿in the litigation; (2) the intervention will¿not enlarge¿the issues in the case; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties.  (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (Transco Syndicate No. 1)¿(1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346.)¿¿¿ 

DISCUSSION

            Intervenor alleges that (1) it has a direct interest in the matter as it insures defendants Keith McInnis and RFG Construction, Inc. (Insurance code § 11580(b)(2); (2) the Intervenor’s claims will not enlarge the case; and (3) the Intervenor’s interests are not being adequately represented because Defendants are unable or unwilling to represent their own interests.

            No opposition has been filed.

CONCLUSION

The Court grants Intervenor’s Motion for Leave to Intervene.

            Intervenor to give notice.