Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 22STCV17410, Date: 2023-02-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV17410    Hearing Date: February 2, 2023    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.            INTRODUCTION

On May 26, 2022, Plaintiff Barbara Dailey (“Plaintiff”) brought this action against Defendants Los Angeles World Airport, HMSHost Corporation, and Starbucks Corporation (collectively “Defendants”), asserting causes of action for negligence and dangerous condition of public property.  Plaintiff alleges in relevant part that she was injured while performing duties in the course of her employment with Seasons Recovery Center, LLC (“Seasons”).  At the time of the incident, Seasons was insured for the purposes of workers' compensation liability by American Family Home Insurance Company (“American Family”). American Family brings this motion for leave to intervene as a plaintiff.  No opposition has been filed.

On January 5, 2023, the Court found that American Family’s counsel’s (“Counsel”) declaration was insufficient to establish a right to intervene because the declaration submitted in support by Counsel did not establish that he had personal knowledge of American Family’s obligation to Plaintiff and Seasons.  The Court continued the instant Motion to allow American Family to submit competent evidence demonstrating its right to intervene.  American Family had until January 27, 2023 to file any supplemental declaration.

To date, American Family has failed to file any supplemental declaration.

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(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(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(d)(2).)

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(e).)

III.        DISCUSSION

As set forth above, on January 5, 2023, the Court found that American Family’s Counsel’s declaration was insufficient to establish a right to intervene because the declaration submitted in support by Counsel did not establish that he had personal knowledge of American Family’s obligation to Plaintiff and Seasons.  The Court continued the instant Motion to allow American Family to submit competent evidence demonstrating its right to intervene.  American Family had until January 27, 2023 to file any supplemental declaration.  To date, American Family has failed to file any supplemental declaration.

In light of American Family’s failure to file a supplemental declaration establishing American Family’s obligation to Plaintiff and Seasons, the Court DENIES American Family Motion to Intervene.

IV.         CONCLUSION

The Court DENIES American Family’s Motion to Intervene.  To the extent American Family is able to obtain evidence demonstrating its right to intervene, it may re-file this Motion.

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 2nd day of February 2023