Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

Plaintiff Aslan Abcarian is an employee of Proposed Intervenor, the County of Los Angeles (the “County”).  Plaintiff was performing his regular duties for the County, conducting soil tests, when he was allegedly assaulted by Defendants Corey Cabriales and Robert Cabriales, who were allegedly acting in the course and scope of their employment with Defendant Christensen Brother General Engineering Inc.     

Plaintiff thereafter filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits.  The County has paid and continues to pay compensation benefits to Plaintiff totaling over $28,546.03.  The County now seeks to intervene in this action to seek the first right to full reimbursement of the benefits paid to Plaintiff, pursuant to Cal. Labor Code §3852.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling. 

   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code Civ. Proc. §387(b) provides that, “An 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 a 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 

Code of Civil Procedure §387, subdivision (d)(1)¿provides that the court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if “a provision of law confers an unconditional right to¿intervene.”  Here, the County argues it has a right to¿intervene pursuant to¿Labor Code §§¿3852 and 3954. 

Labor Code §§3852 and 3853 allows for the employer to join as a party any time before trial.  Section 3852 states that “any employer who pays or becomes obligated to pay compensation … may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person.  In the latter event, the employer may recover in the same suit, in addition to the total amount of compensation, damages for which he or she was liable.”  And under §3853, if an action is brought by either the employer or employee against the third party defendant, “the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as a party plaintiff or should consolidate her action, if brought independently.”   

Pursuant to Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3853, the County has a right to intervene in this action.  Accordingly, the Court grants its motion to intervene.      

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants the County of Los Angeles’ motion to intervene.   

 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: February 2, 2024 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court