Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 21STCV26396, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV26396, Date: 2023-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26396 Hearing Date: October 16, 2023 Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

HEARING DATE: October 16, 2023 TRIAL DATE: April 16, 2024

CASE: Vahe Karapet v. Negdeh Yaghoubian, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV26396

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION

MOVING PARTY: Petitioner Indian Harbor Insurance Company

RESPONDING PARTY: No opposition

I. INTRODUCTION

On July 19, 2021, Plaintiff, Vahe Karapet, filed a form complaint against Defendants, Nejdeh Yaghoubian (“Yaghoubian”), Nancy Gaignard (“Gaignard”), and Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), for injuries Plaintiff sustained in an August 8, 2019 motor vehicle accident. Plaintiff alleges she was a passenger in a Lyft vehicle driven by Gaignard when Yaghoubian weaved through traffic in his vehicle and side swiped Gaignard’s vehicle. Plaintiff asserts causes of action for General Negligence and Motor Vehicle against all defendants. At the time of the incident, Indian Harbor Insurance Company (“Indian Harbor”) provided automobile liability insurance for Lyft and its drivers using while using the Lyft application.

Gaignard was served with the summons and complaint on December 13, 2021. However, Gaignard has not appeared in this action and is now at risk of having her default taken. Accordingly, Indian Harbor filed this motion for leave to intervene in this matter and defend against liability and damages.

The motion is unopposed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or 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 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.”

(Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (d)(1).)

Where an employee brings an action for damages proximately caused by a third person, an employer who pays or becomes obligated to pay compensation, or salary in lieu of compensation, may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person. (Lab. Code § 3852.) “[T]he employer may recover in the same suit, in addition to the total amount of compensation, damages for which he or she was liable including all salary, wage, pension, or other emolument paid to the employee or to his or her dependents.” (Ibid.)

“A workers’ compensation carrier is authorized to attempt recovery of benefits paid either through the maintenance of an independent action (Lab. Code § 3852), intervention in the employee’s action (Lab. Code § 3853), or assertion of lien rights in the employee’s recovery (Lab. Code § 3856, subd. (b).)” (Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1015, fn. 7.)

If leave to intervene is granted by the court, the intervenor shall separately file the complaint in intervention and serve notice of the court’s decision” to parties who have appeared. (Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (e).)

III. DISCUSSION

Indian Harbor argues leave to intervene should be granted because Gaignard has not appeared in this action and is unlocatable. Consequently, Gaignard is at risk of default and default judgment. Further, a default judgment against Gaignard would bind Indian Harbor under to Insurance Code section 11580. Thus, Indian Harbor seeks to protect its own interests as an insurer by contesting Gaignard’s alleged liability and the amount of damages, if any.

Indian Harbor demonstrates its right to intervene. ¿Indian Harbor offers a declaration from Indian Harbor’s claim representative who confirms the foregoing.¿ (See Declaration of Ron Walker.)¿ Indian Harbor also includes a copy of the proposed complaint-in-intervention to be filed.

IV. CONCLUSION

The unopposed motion is GRANTED. Intervenor is ordered to file its Complaint-in Intervention within five (5) court days of this Order.

Given the Court’s ruling, and as indicated in the Court’s 9/7/22 Minute Order, Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration is CONTINUED to November 9, 2023 at 1:30 PM to allow Indian Harbor to review Lyft’s motion to compel arbitration. Indian Harbor may file an opposition no later than 9 court days before the November 9, 2023 hearing. Lyft may file a reply no later than 4 court days before the hearing.

Moving party to give notice.

Dated: October 16, 2023 ___________________________________

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court

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.