Judge: Kevin C. Brazile, Case: 23STCV20427, Date: 2024-03-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20427    Hearing Date: March 12, 2024    Dept: 20

Tentative Ruling

Judge Kevin C. Brazile

Hearing Date:                         Tuesday, March 12, 2024

Case Name:                             Ochoa v. Encore Jeans Corporation, et al.

Case No.:                                23STCV20427

Motion:                                  Motion for Leave to Intervene

Moving Party:                         Oak River Insurance Company

Responding Party:                  Unopposed

Notice:                                    OK

Ruling:                                    The Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

Oak River Insurance Company to give notice.

If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear in person.

BACKGROUND

            On August 25, 2023, Plaintiff Mario Ochoa (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against Defendants Encore Jeans Corporation; 3005 S. Grand Avenue, LLC (“Defendants”); and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive for: (1) Negligence; (2) Negligent Provision of Adequate Safeguards; (3) Strict Products Liability; (4) Products Liability – Negligence; (5) Products Liability – Failure to Warn; (6) Products Liability – Design Defect; (7) Products Liability – Manufacturing Defect; and (8) Violation of Civil Code § 1714(a) – Premises Liability. The FAC alleges on or about August 25, 2021, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Encore at the subject premises when the defective and hidden condition on the wooden structure collapses causing Plaintiff to suffer a broken ankle leading to multiple surgeries.

            On September 27, 2023, non-party Oak River Insurance Company filed this instant motion for leave to file intervention.

No opposition has been filed.

DISCUSSION

Applicable Law

            “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by…(1) joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(b)(1).)

“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 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).)

Application to Facts

            Oak River Insurance Company moves for an order permitting intervention as a party plaintiff in this present action. The motion is made on the grounds that Oak river Insurance Company, administered by Berkshire Hathaway Homestate Companies, as worker’s compensation carrier for the employer of Plaintiff is afforded rights of interventions as a party plaintiff pursuant to California Labor Code § 3853.

            “If either the employee or the employer brings an action against such third person, he shall forthwith give to the other a copy of the complaint by personal service or certified mail. Proof of such service shall be filed in such action. If the action is brought by either the employer or employee, the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently.” (Lab. Code § 3853.)

            In Quisenberry v. Rulison (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 268, the court held “[t]he evident and only purpose of the requirement for the notice of commencing an action in Lab. Code, sec. 3853 is to enable the employer or his compensation carrier to make his choice whether to join in the action and employ his own attorneys or to permit the employee through his attorneys to proceed without the employer or carrier intervening.” (Quisenberry v. Rulison (1954) 129 Cal.App.2d 268, 270.)

            Oak River Insurance Company contends it has paid worker’s compensation benefits to and on behalf of Plaintiff arising out of the same incident. As such, Oak River Insurance Company contends it is subrogated to the rights of Plaintiff in a claim for reimbursement of worker’s compensation benefits.

            Here, Oak River Insurance Company has attached a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention. Furthermore, Oak River Insurance Company has shown that it is the worker’s compensation carrier that paid out benefits to and on behalf of Plaintiff in this action. Lastly, Plaintiff nor any Defendants in this action have opposed this present motion.          

CONCLUSION

            The Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

            Oak River Insurance Company to give notice.

            If counsel do not submit on the tentative, they are strongly encouraged to appear in person.