Judge: James A. Mangione, Case: 37-2022-00016494-CU-FR-CTL, Date: 2024-02-23 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - February 23, 2024

02/23/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-75 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:James A Mangione

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Fraud Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2022-00016494-CU-FR-CTL JONES VS POWERS [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Proposed Intervenors' Motion to Intervene is denied.

Proposed Intervenors claim that they are entitled to mandatory and/or discretionary intervention and that they are indispensable parties to the current action. A proposed intervenor can establish a mandatory right to intervene where 'the person seeking intervention has an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action' and 'is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest'. (Siena Court Homeowners Assn. v. Green Valley Corp. (2008) 164 Cal.App.4th 1416, 1423.) Similarly, an party ''if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest.'' (Id. at 1426 (quoting CCP § 389(a).) Alternatively, '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.' (Id. at 1428 (quotation marks omitted).) Here, Proposed Intervenors have shown no basis for intervention under any of the above bases. The instant case is a private party dispute for monetary damages between Plaintiffs and their realtor regarding disclosures related to purchasing a private residence. Nothing that happens in the instant case can affect any rights purportedly held by Proposed Intervenors. Finally, to the extent that Proposed Intervenors have a claim for quiet title related to the boundaries between the properties, this is an entirely separate claim with no bearing on the instant case.

The minute order is the order of the Court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3076089  9