Judge Jill Feeney, Case 19STCV25195 2022-08-17 Tentative Ruling

The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.

Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.

Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.

If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.

If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.

Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.

Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.

Proposed Intervenor argues its motion should be granted because it has a direct and immediate interest in the outcome of this litigation as it may be required to satisfy any judgment entered against Del Campo. Del Campo was an international renter who returned to Spain and has been unreachable. Since Del Campo is not defending this action, Proposed Intervenor may be held liable for any judgment against Del Campo as his insurer.

(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.

To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case . . . . And section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.” (Id. at p. 1200.) “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected. ‘The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment . . . .’” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882 (citations and emphasis omitted).

Proposed Intervenor seeks a court order granting leave to intervene on the grounds that it has a direct and immediate interest in the action. Proposed Intervenor alleges it is Defendant Jose Gijon Del Campo’s liability insurance provider and that it may be liable for damages if Plaintiff obtains a judgment against Del Camp. Proposed Intervenor and Del Campo’s Counsel have been unable to contact Del Campo, necessitating the instant motion for leave to intervene.

Under California law, an insurance carrier who is not a party to an action can intervene on behalf of its insured when the insurance carrier could be subject to a subsequent action under Insurance Code section 11580. (See Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386, (“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damages, arises as a result of Ins. 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. 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.” (Id.; see also Jade K. v. Viguri (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1468 (permitting an insurer to intervene in lawsuit to litigate liability and damage issues).) “‘Intervention may . . . be allowed in the insurance context, where third party claimants are involved, when the insurer is allowed to take over in litigation if its insured is not defending an action, to avoid harm to the insurer.’” (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 (quoting Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 206).)

Here, Proposed Intervenor is the insurer for Del Campo. (Motion, p.5.) Proposed Intervenor’s motion is supported by a declaration by Del Campo’s Counsel, Celeena B. Pompeo, who is the attorney of record for Del Campo in this action. (Pompeo Decl., ¶1.) Del Campo was properly served via FedEx and receipts show the package containing the papers were signed by a J. Luis Gijon CVD. (Id., Exhibit A.) Counsel “retained an investigator to locate defendant Del Campo via a social media and address search,” which yielded a Facebook profile Proposed Intervenor believes belongs to Del Campo. (Id., 4.) After sending Del Campo messages on Facebook, Counsel has not received any response. (Id.) Proposed Intervenor then filed this motion to intervene.

Intervention may be allowed here because Proposed Intervenor, as Del Campo’s insurer, may be subject to direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 in the event of an adverse outcome. Del Campo is unreachable in Spain and has never defended this action. Proposed Intervenor seeks to intervene in order to defend against the claim on Del Campo’s behalf in order to defend its own interests. Proposed Intervenor properly notified the other parties in this action of its intention to intervene and received no opposition.