Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 20STCV11674, Date: 2023-01-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11674    Hearing Date: January 24, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On March 20, 2020, Plaintiff Tiara Wilson (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against The Stalking Horse Brewery & Freehouse (“Stalking Horse”) and Artisanal Brewers Collective, LLC (“Artisanal”). Plaintiff alleges that while on the premises of 10543 W. Pico Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90064, which is owned, maintained, operated, and/or controlled by Defendants, a heavy black object fell from the ceiling onto her, causing injuries. The complaint states causes of action for premises liability, negligence, and products liability.

Plaintiff amended the complaint to replace Start Ups Construction, Ltd. (“Start Ups”) with Doe 1. Plaintiff alleges that the object that fell from the ceiling is a sound proofing board installed by Defendant Start Ups.

On September 16, 2022, Defendant-in-Intervention, Associated Industries Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed a motion for leave to intervene. Defendant Start Ups has an insurance policy with Intervenor. Additionally, Start Ups is a suspended corporation. 

No opposition has been filed.

II.          LEGAL STANDARD

A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by ex parte application.  The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)  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, or 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1).)  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, subd. (d)(2).)

“The trial court has the discretion to allow intervention where the proper procedures are followed, provided: (1) the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation, (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case, and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh opposition by the existing parties.”  (Hinton v. Beck (2009) 176 Cal.4th 1378, 1382-1383.)  “A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.”  (Continental Vinyl Products Corp. v. Mead Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 543, 549.)  “An 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.”  (Id. at p. 550.)

III.        DISCUSSION

At the time of Plaintiff’s accident, Defendant Start Ups held a liability policy with Intervenor, Associated. (Heineman Decl. ¶ 6.) Intervenor argues that, pursuant to the terms and conditions of the liability policy, it would be required to pay any judgment awarded to Plaintiff. Intervenor also states that Start Ups lacks standing because it is a suspended company and thus is unable to defend itself.

 “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.”  (Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 206.)  For example, insurers have been permitted to intervene when the third party has obtained a default against the insured (Jade K. v. Viguri (1984) 210 Cal.App.3d 1459, 1473-1474), or where the insured’s answer has been stricken because its corporate status has been suspended (Reliance Insurance Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 385-387). 

Intervenor seeks to intervene and has attached a proposed answer-in-intervention. Intervenor argues it has a direct interest in this action because it will be obligated to pay any judgment awarded to Plaintiff.  Further, Start Ups is unable to defend itself in this action because it is a suspended corporation. 

The Court finds Associated has a direct interest in the litigation and intervention will not enlarge any of the issues presented.  Further, no existing parties have objected to this motion for leave to intervene. 

IV.         CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Associated’s Motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED. The Answer-in-Intervention attached to the moving papers is deemed filed and served as of this date.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  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.

Dated this 24^th day of January 2023