Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This action arises from a car accident involving Plaintiff Florentino Martinez.  Plaintiff alleges that he was lawfully parked when Defendant Michael Everett negligently drove his car, colliding into the rear and side of Plaintiff’s car.  

At the time of the accident, Martinez was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Proposed Intervenor Construction Group Staffing, LLC.  Proposed Intervenor and/or its workers’ compensation carrier paid benefits to or on behalf of Plaintiff.  (Makorow Decl. at ¶ 3.) 

Proposed Intervenor now seeks to intervene in this action to seek reimbursement of the benefits paid to Plaintiff.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. §387(b) provides that, “[a]n intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by… [j]oining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint[,] [u]niting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff[,] [or] [d]emanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.”  

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

In the case of intervention as of right, “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if… [either] [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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §387(d)(1)(A)-(B).) 

In the case of permissive intervention, “[t]he 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc. §387(d)(2).)    

DISCUSSION 

The Court finds that Proposed Intervenor has satisfied the filing requirements of¿Code of Civil Procedure §387, subdivision (c)¿by filing a noticed motion and declaration setting forth the grounds for intervention as well as a copy of its proposed complaint in intervention.  

Proposed Intervenor seeks to intervene in this action under¿Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3853¿as an employer, with a right of subrogation.  Section 3852 provides that an employer or its workers compensation carrier “may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person” who caused an employee’s injuries for which workers’ compensation benefits are paid.  Section 3853 further states that if either the employer or the employee brings an action against a negligent third party, “the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently.”   

The Court finds that Proposed Intervenor is entitled to intervene under¿Code of Civil Procedure § 387.  First, the Court finds that Proposed Intervenor’s motion is timely because¿Labor Code § 3853¿allows a nonparty to join as a party plaintiff “at any time before trial on¿the facts.”  There has been as yet no trial.  Second, the Court finds that¿Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3853 grant Proposed Intervenor the right to intervene under¿Code of Civil Procedure § 387¿because Proposed Intervenor has a right of subrogation as Plaintiff’s employer. (Lab. Code §§ 3952,¿3853.)  Proposed Intervenor may file a complaint-in-intervention to recover for the benefits paid to Plaintiff and related damages. (Lab. Code. § 3852.)  

Accordingly, the Court finds that Proposed Intervenor has sufficiently claimed an interest in the disposition of the action for purposes of intervention. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Proposed Intervenor Construction Group Staffing, LLC’s motion to intervene.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: April 14, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court