Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 20, 2022

22STCV06928

Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Plaintiff-in-Intervention Sentry Casualty Company

As Sentry is Sandra Guidos’s employer’s insurer, the motion is GRANTED pursuant to Labor Code section 3853.

Sentry is ordered to file its Complaint-in-Intervention within 10 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

This is an action for motor vehicle negligence, negligence, and loss of consortium arising from a vehicle collision which took place in March 2020. Plaintiffs Sandra Zelada Guidos and Jose Eduardo Onofre filed their Complaint against Defendant Charles Leonard IV Surges on February 25, 2022.

On October 3, 2022, Proposed Intervenor, Sentry Casualty Company (“Sentry”), filed the instant motion to intervene.

Sentry argues its motion should be granted because Plaintiff Sandra Zelda Guidos was working within the course and scope of her employment for Transtar Holding Company, LLC. Sentry is Transtar’s workers’ compensation insurance provider. Sentry has paid and continues to pay workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Sandra Guidos.

None filed.

CCP section 387(d) provides the following:

(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: 

(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.

(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.

(2) The 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).)

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). 

Labor Code sections 3852 and 3853 provide that an employer against whom a claim for workers’ compensation damages was made may join in an action against a third party arising out of the incident for which the workers’ compensation payment was made. (Lab. Code, §§ 3852, 3853.) “[Labor Code] [s]ection 3853 states that when an action is brought against a third party by either the employer or the employee, ‘the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff.’” (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 206 (quoting Labor Code section 3853).) An employer includes the employer’s insurer. (Lab. Code, § 3850(b).)

Sentry seeks a court order granting leave to intervene on the grounds that Plaintiff was acting within the course and scope of her employment for Transtar Holding Company at the time of the subject collision. 

Sentry states in its motion that it is Transtar Holding Company’s third-party workers’ compensation benefits provider and that it paid and continues to pay Sandra Zelada Guidos workers’ compensation benefits. (Soll Decl., ¶5.) Plaintiff was working in the course and scope of her employment with Transtar Holding Company when the injury occurred. (Id., ¶4.)

As Sentry is Sandra Guidos’s employer’s insurer, the motion is GRANTED pursuant to Labor Code section 3853.

Sentry. is ordered to file its Complaint-in-Intervention within 10 days.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.