Judge: John C. Gastelum, Case: 21-01237499, Date: 2022-09-13 Tentative Ruling
Motion for Joinder
Tentative Ruling: Non-party Michael Esola, proceeding in pro per, (“Moving Party”) filed a “Notice of Motion for Permissive Joinder of Moving Party Michael Esola as Plaintiff” seeking to participate as a Plaintiff in the present action. (ROA # 153.) Plaintiff Justin S. Beck, proceeding in pro per (“Plaintiff”) filed an untimely memorandum and declaration in support of the motion. (ROA # 178.) The motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.
“[T]he 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.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 736.)
“The requirement of a direct and immediate interest means that the interest must be of such a direct and immediate nature that the moving party will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.” (City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037 [citations omitted].) “A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.” (Ibid. [emphasis in original].)
“Conversely, [a]n interest is consequential and thus insufficient for intervention when the action in which intervention is sought does not directly affect it although the results of the action may indirectly benefit or harm its owner.” (City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037 [citations omitted].)
In his moving papers, Moving Party attempts to join the action as a plaintiff pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 379. As established in opposition to the motion, section 379 governs a person’s right to join an action as a defendant. Thus, section 379 does not grant the relief Moving Party seeks. Moving Party also cites to McCall v. Reed (M.D. Ala. 2015) 157 F.Supp.3d 1192 and Moseley v. General Motors Corp. (8th Cir.) 497 F.2d 1330. Neither case is binding.
On reply, Moving Party asserts that he is entitled to join the action pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and attaches his proposed complaint with his reply. Code of Civil Procedure section 387(c) requires that Moving Party submit his proposed complaint with his notice of motion – not in his reply. Thus, at the outset Moving Party has not established the first requirement to intervene, which requires Moving Party to following the “proper procedures.” This alone is grounds to deny the motion.
Next, Moving Party fails to establish the second requirement: a showing that he has a direct and immediate interest in the action. Indeed, Moving Party’s rights against Defendants will be unaffected by the outcome of Plaintiff’s case. This is true because the facts giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims are separate and distinct from those giving rise to Moving Party’s claims as they do not arise out of the same, transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions. Their claims involve different attorneys, different disciplinary investigations, different investigating attorneys from the State Bar, and individualized damages. Moving Party objects to how the State Bar handled disciplinary proceedings related to attorney Keyvan Samini while Plaintiff objects to how the State Bar handled disciplinary proceedings and licensing related to Kenneth Catanzarite, Nicole Catanzarite-Woodward, Jim Travis Tice, and Time James O’Keefe.
The only commonality between Moving Party and Plaintiff is that they allege that they were wronged by The State Bar and the individuals who work for The State Bar (but the individuals who work for The State Bar differ for each). This is insufficient to conclude that Moving Party has a direct and immediate interest in the action.
Because Moving Party cannot establish that he followed the proper procedure to intervene and further cannot establish that he has a direct and immediate interest in the action, Moving Party Michael Esola’s Motion for Permissive Joinder is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court need not address the remaining two requisite factors.
Defendant The State Bar of California to give notice.