Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 24STCV22881, Date: 2025-06-04 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Cross-Complainant Total Life Care, Inc.’s unopposed motion for leave to intervene in the Cross-Complaint as a matter of right is granted pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).

Cross-Complainant Total Life Care, Inc. (“TLC”) (“Cross-Complainant”) moves unopposed for leave to intervene in the Cross-Complaint (“XC”) as a matter of right in the instant matter on the basis because Cross-Complainant claims an interest in the property that is the subject of this action, and adjudication of the parties’ claims in its absence will impair or impede Cross-Complainant’s ability to protect that interest. (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §§378, 387, 389, 428.20.)

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff Marcos Hernandez (“Hernandez”) filed his Complaint against Defendant Jessica Montesinos (“Montesinos”) (“Defendant”) for three causes of action: (1) breach of fiduciary duty; (2) breach of contract; and (3) declaratory relief.

On December 6, 2024, Montesinos and TLC filed a cross-complaint (“XC”) against Hernandez for five causes of action: (1) breach of written contract (count 1); (2) breach of written contract (count 2); (3) intentional misrepresentation; (4) negligent misrepresentation; and (5) declaratory relief.

TLC filed the instant motion on January 29, 2025. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

Pursuant to C.C.P. §387(b), “an intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following: (1) Joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint [;] (2) Uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff [; or] (3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.” (C.C.P. §387(b).)

(d)(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:

(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.

(2) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.

The Court grants TLC’s motion for leave to intervene in the XC pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B). TLC has an interest in the property that is the subject of this action, and adjudication of the parties’ claims in its absence will impair or impede Cross-Complainant’s ability to protect that interest. Therefore, TLC is entitled to mandatory intervention in the SC so long as its rights are not adequately protected by existing parties.

As a preliminary matter, the instant motion is timely. (Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006)143 Cal. App. 4th 838, 842 [stating there is no statutory time limit for filing a motion to intervene].) The general rule is that “a right to intervene should be asserted within a reasonable time and that the intervenor must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.” (Allen v. California Water & Telephone Co. (1947) 31 Cal.2d 104, 108.) Intervention is timely unless any party opposing intervention can show prejudice from any delay attributable to the filing of the motion to intervene. (Truck Insurance Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351 [stating motion to intervene filed in lawsuit that had been pending for four years was timely because parties to that action had shown no prejudice other than being required to prove their case].) Here, TLC learned about its need to intervene on January 6, 2025, when this Court scheduled an OSC requesting TLC to file a brief as to how or why it can be a party without being interpleaded. (1/6/25 Minute Order.)

TLC demonstrates an interest relating to the property that is the subject of the XC. TLC is the signatory and contracting party to the Purchase Agreement, which is at issue in the XC. (XC ¶9, Exh. 1.) TLC is also the signatory and contracting party to the “Payment Schedule for Shareholder Distributions”, which is at issue in the Complaint. (See Complaint ¶¶15, 25, Exh. 1.) Moreover, the basis of Plaintiff’s Complaint involves Plaintiff’s ownership interest of 25% of TLC. (See Complaint ¶11.) TLC not being included in the XC will prevent Plaintiff from seeking complete relief under C.C.P. §389(a)(1) and will impair TLC’s ability to protect its interest under C.C.P. §389(a)(2)(i), which will lead to multiple or inconsistent obligations for Montesinos and TLC under C.C.P. §389(a)(2)(ii).

Accordingly, TLC is entitled to mandatory intervention in the XC pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).

TLC’s unopposed motion for leave to intervene in the Cross-Complaint is granted. TLC is granted leave to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to C.C.P. §387(d)(1)(B).

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court