Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 20CHCV00303, Date: 2024-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 20CHCV00303    Hearing Date: March 15, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AS AN INTERESTED PARTY

Motion filed: 11/3/23

MOVING PARTY: Walter Martin (“Mr. Martin”) 

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants/Cross-Complainants Sayra Alvarado, Norma Salcido, and Jonathan Banuelos (collectively, “Defendants”), and Plaintiff Chevon Martin Robinson, as Successor Trustee of THE GESNER L. MARTIN LIVING TRUST (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: ok

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Mr. Martin’s leave to intervene as an interested party under the mandatory intervention authority in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d) paragraph (1)

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On May 15, 2020, Mr. Martin, allegedly acting as Trustee for THE GESNER L. MARTIN LIVING TRUST (the “Trust”), initiated this action against Defendants/Cross-Complainants and Does 1 through 20. The Complaint alleges a breach of lease contract for the Trust-owned real property located at 11973 Adelphia Ave. Pacoima, California, 91331 (the “rental property”). Subsequently, on June 24, 2020, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Answer to the Complaint.

On June 24, 2020, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed a Cross-Complaint against Mr. Martin and Does 1 – 20, alleging nine causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of implied warranty of habitability/tenantability; (3) breach of implied warranty of quiet enjoyment; (4) negligence; (5) constructive eviction; (6) nuisance; (7) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (8) retaliatory acts; and (9) trespass. Subsequently, Mr. Martin, allegedly acting as Trustee for the Trust, filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint on August 7, 2020.

On February 7, 2022, Mr. Martin filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against all Defendants/Cross-Complainants for (1) breach of contract; and (2) negligence. Following this, Defendants/Cross-Complainants filed their Answer to the FAC on May 16, 2022.

On October 23, 2023, the Court granted Defendants/Cross-Complainants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that Mr. Martin lacks standing in prosecuting the present action due to an order suspending him as trustee of the Trust by the Antelope Valley Court on March 6, 2019, in the matter of the Conservatorship of Rex Martin, LASC Case No. 18AVPB0069 (the “Conservatorship matter”). As a result, Mr. Martin was removed as Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant. (10/23/23 Minute Order, Mot., at 2.)

On November 3, 2023, Mr. Martin filed the instant Motion for Leave to Intervene as An Interested Party (the “Motion”)

On November 9, 2023, the court in the Conservatorship matter appointed Chevon Martin Robinson (“Robinson”) as the Successor Trustee of the Trust. Subsequently, on November 30, 2023, Robinson was substituted in as Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant in the present action on behalf of the Trust, in place of Mr. Martin. (11/30/23 Notice of Substitution, Ex. “A,” 11/9/23 Minute Order by Probate Division In re: Martin, Rex – Conservatorship.) 

Subsequently, both Defendants/Cross-Complainants and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant filed their Oppositions to the Motion on March 4, and March 6, 2023, respectively.

No Reply has been received by the Court.

ANALYSIS

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

“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, subd. (d), par. (1).)

A.    Mandatory Intervention

Mandatory intervention is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d) paragraph (1), which provides “[a] provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. [Or,] [t]he 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.”

In determining whether an unconditional right to intervene exists under section 387, the threshold question is whether the person seeking intervention has “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action.” (Mylan Laboratories, Inc. v. Soon-Shiong (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 71, 78; California Physicians’ Service v. Superior Court (1980) 102 Cal. App.3d 91, 96.)

In addition to establishing an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, a person seeking intervention must also show that he or she “is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d), par. (1), Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 554 (Hodge).) Upon this showing, the court must permit the person to intervene unless the “the person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d), par. (1), Hodge, at 554-555.)

Here, Mr. Martin contends that he has an unconditional right to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure 387, subdivision (d), arguing that he has sufficient interest in the rental property as both mortgage borrower and personal guarantor. (Mot., at 5.)  Moreover, Mr. Martin asserts that the disposition of the action “may impair or impede” his personal and financial interests, particularly if “the putative Plaintiff of this case takes no action that could irreparably damage his rights.” (Id., at 6.) Furthermore, he contends that the existing parties cannot adequately represent his interests, as they cannot “stand in his shoes and protect his interests.” (Ibid.)

Both Defendants/Cross-Complainants and Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant dispute Mr. Martin’s contention that he is entitled to mandatory intervention, on the similar basis that he lacks any remaining interest in the Trust, which owns the rental property.

It is important to highlight that the Court emphasizes the necessity for an individual to have an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, to qualify for mandatory intervention as outlined under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d) paragraph (1).

The Court finds the ruling of Siena Court Homeowners Assn. v. Green Valley Corp (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1416 (Siena) instructive on this issue. In that case, a condominium association “Siena Court” brought construction defect action against the developer “Green Valley.” Another condominium association, “University Gardens,” sought to intervene on the grounds that it had an interest in the common facilities involved in the dispute. (Id., at 1416.) The plaintiff Siena Court argued was specifically about a construction contract with Green Valley regarding the latter’s liability for repair of defects in the joint common facilities, highlighting that University Gardens was not a party to the construction contract. (Id., at 1425.)

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to deny University Garden’s intervention. It reasoned that even if University Garden had made the requisite showing of its interest in the property through a joint use and maintenance agreement between it and Siena Court, the respective interests or obligations are nonetheless independent of the issue in the construction defect action. (Id., at 1426.) Furthermore, the Court of Appeal concludes that a judgment in the construction defect action would not affect University Garden’s ability to protect its interests, as it may pursue a separate action against Siena Court based their sperate joint use and maintenance agreement. (Ibid.) 

  In the present case, while there are similarities with the Siena case, Mr. Martin’s argument for intervention is further removed.

Firstly, unlike University Garden in Siena, which had a joint use and maintenance agreement with the plaintiff Siena Court, Mr. Martin fails to demonstrate any existing legal relationship with Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant, the Trust, notwithstanding his previous roles and agreements related to the rental property when he was a trustee. (Mot. at 3.)  The appointment of Robinson as the Successor Trustee by the Conservatorship Court further undermines Mr. Martin’s claim to any current interest in the Trust. (Robinson Opp’n., at 3.)

In his Motion, Mr. Marton challenges the validity of the order entered on March 6, 2019, suspending him as the trustee. However, the Court, in its 10/23/23 Minute Order, has stated that it lacks jurisdiction to consider this challenge, advising that such arguments should be brought before the Probate Court. (10/23/23 Minute Order, at 3.) Therefore, the Court does not consider this argument in reviewing the instant Motion.

Consequently, considering the Siena rationale, the Court faces constraints in recognizing any interest that Mr. Martin might claim in the Trust’s property, given the absence of a direct legal relationship or agreement between him and the Trust.

  Secondly, the Court draws a parallel with the finding of the subject of the action in Siena decision, where the subject of the Siena action was the construction contract, distinct from a joint use and maintenance agreement. Similarly, in Mr. Martin’s case, his role as a personal guarantor for the bank mortgage on the rental property is deemed unrelated to the lease contract dispute currently before the court. His noninvolvement in the lease contract leads the Court to conclude that he lacks standing to seek any remedy against Defendants/Cross-Complainants who are tenants under said lease. (10/23/23 Minute Order.)

Thirdly, mirroring the rationale in Siena, the Court finds that even assuming that Mr. Martin has an interest in the rental property, he has not demonstrated that the outcome of the action in his absence will impair or impede his ability to protect that interest. Given that Mr. Martin’s interest is assumed based on his agreement with the bank for the mortgage, he retains the option to pursue his mortgage-related claims in a separate legal action.

Given the lack of sufficient showing to meet the requisite threshold outlined under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 subdivision (d) paragraph (1), the Court concludes that Mr. Martin is not eligible for mandatory intervention.

            Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Intervene is Denied.

CONCLUSION

Mr. Walter Martin’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is DENIED.

Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant is ordered to provide notice of this order.