Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03920, Date: 2025-04-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV03920    Hearing Date: April 21, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT AMC HOSPITALITY, LLC

Motion filed: 3/26/25

MOVING PARTY: Arch Insurance Company 

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Arch Insurance Company’s leave to intervene as the insurer of Defendant AMC Hospitality.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from personal injuries that Plaintiff Carla Flores (“Plaintiff” or “Flores”) allegedly sustained in a slip and fall incident at Defendant’s premises.

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against Defendants AMC Hospitality (erroneously sued as “Chick-Fil-A, Inc.”) (“AMC”), Carla Doe (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 50, alleging: (1) general negligence, and (2) premises liability.

On March 26, 2025, Arch Insurance Company filed the instant Motion for Leave to Intervene (the “Motion”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been filed.

ANALYSIS

“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:… (2) Uniting¿with¿a¿defendant in resisting the claims of¿a¿plaintiff.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b)(2).) To intervene in an action, “[a] nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)  

A nonparty must be permitted to intervene if either of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) the person seeking intervention claims an interest related 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)(1)(A)-(B).) A court has discretionary authority to allow a nonparty to intervene “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).) 

A.    Motion to Intervene

Arch Insurance Company (“Arch”) seeks to intervene in this personal injury matter as the insurer of Defendant AMC.

“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. [Citation.]” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Ct. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386 (Reliance).) When a nonparty insurer intervenes, the nonparty insurer is deemed to not enlarge the issues in the case since the insurer will almost certainly assert the same defenses as its insured. (Id. at p. 388.) 

“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damage, arises as a result of Insurance Code section 11580. Section 11580 provides that a judgment creditor may proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the defendant, and obtain satisfaction of the judgment up to the amount of the policy limits. [Citation.] Thus, where the insurer may be subject to a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a third party action against the insured, intervention is appropriate. [Citation.] The insurer may either intervene in that action prior to judgment or move under Code of Civil Procedure section 473 to set aside the default judgment. [Citation.] Where an insurer has failed to intervene in the underlying action or to move to set aside the default judgment, the insurer is bound by the default judgment.” (Reliance, supra, 84 Cal.App.4th at pp. 386-387.)

Arch contends that it has satisfied the requirements for intervention because: (1) it has a direct and immediate interest in the instant matter, (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues, (3) it will face substantial prejudice if the intervention is denied, and (4) it has followed proper procedures and the Motion is timely. (Mot. at pp. 6-8.)

In support of its position, Arch submits the declaration of its counsel, Jenifer L. Kienle (“Kienle”), who attests that it and Defendant AMC have parallel interests. Kienle further explains that intervention is the only available mechanism to safeguard those interests, as AMC is legally incapable of defending itself due to its status as a terminated entity (Kienle Decl. ¶¶ 2, 11). Kienle also affirms that Arch does not seek to expand the issues raised in this action (id. ¶ 13), and that the Motion was filed as soon as reasonably practicable after it became clear that Defendant AMC’s terminated status could not be resolved (id. ¶ 14.)

Notably, no Oppositions to the Motion have been filed by any other parties.

The Court finds Arch’s argument persuasive and concludes that the intervention is appropriate under the circumstances.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion.

CONCLUSION

Arch Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

Arch Insurance Company is ordered to separately file and serve the proposed Answer within five days.

Moving party to give notice.