Judge: Latrice A. G. Byrdsong, Case: 22STLC00363, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC00363    Hearing Date: October 18, 2023    Dept: 25

Hearing Date:                         Wednesday, October 18, 2023

Case Name:                             ALBERT OROZCO v. KAREN I. AGUILAR; and DOES 1-25

Case No.:                                22STLC00363

Motion:                                   Motion for Leave to Intervene  

Moving Party:                         Prospective Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company   

Responding Party:                   N/A

Notice:                                    IMPROPER

Tentative Ruling:           The Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Loya Casualty Insurance Company is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

BACKGROUND

On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Albert Orozco (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Karen I. Aguilar (“Aguilar”) and Does 1 to 25 alleging causes of action for: (1) motor vehicle; and (2) general negligence. The complaint arises from an alleged automobile accident which occurred on November 29, 2017. On February 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a proof of service indicating that Aguilar was served the summons and complaint via substituted service on February 6, 2022. Aguilar has not filed an Answer to the complaint.

On September 28, 2023, Prospective Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) filed and served an unopposed motion for leave to intervene. Loya attaches a proposed answer as Exhibit B to the declaration of its counsel, M. Reza Lajevardi (“Lajevardi”), in support of the motion to intervene.

On October 5, 2023, Loya filed an Answer in Intervention on behalf of Aguilar. The Court, however, did not grant Loya permission to file such Answer in Intervention. The Court, in its discretion, may “[s]trike out all or any part of a pleading not drawn or filed in conformity with the laws of this state, a court rule, or an order of the court.” Code Civ. Proc. § 436(b). The Court therefore strikes Loya’s Answer in Intervention filed on October 5, 2023. Such filing occurred without leave of Court. The Court will, however, still address the merits of Loya’s motion to assess whether leave to intervene is appropriate.  

Initially, the Court finds that Loya did not comply with California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b) as “all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days prior to the hearing.” Loya’s motion should have been filed and served, at the latest, by September 26, 2023; however, the motion was not filed until September 28, 2023, which is 14 days before the hearing.

MOVING PARTY POSITION

            In support of the motion, Loya contends that: (1) the Court has broad discretion to allow a nonparty to intervene; and (2) intervention by Loya is warranted and the Court should grant leave to intervene.  Specifically, Loya contends that it has followed proper procedures, has a direct and immediate interest in the action as Aguilar’s insurance carrier, intervention will not enlarge the issues in the action, and the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition presented by the parties.

OPPOSITION

            No opposition brief was filed.

ANALYSIS

I.          Leave to Intervene

A.                Legal Standard

             “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by . . . [u]niting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff.” Code Civ. Proc. § 387(b)(2). To intervene in an action “[a] nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application.” Code Civ. Proc. § 387(c). “The petition shall include a copy of the proposed . . . answer in intervention and set forth grounds upon which intervention rests.” Ibid. A court has discretionary authority to allow a nonparty to intervene “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).

B.        Discussion  

1.         Improper Notice

“Unless otherwise or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b). “The moving and supporting papers served shall be a copy of the papers filed or to be filed with the court.” Id. Due process requires proper and timely notice in order to afford a party “an opportunity to present their objections.” In re Emily R. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1351.

Here, Loya’s motion should have been filed and served, at the latest, by September 26, 2023, which is 16 court days before the hearing. However, according to the proof of service as to the motion, Plaintiff was electronically served with the motion on September 28, 2023, which is 14 days before the hearing. Also, the motion was not filed with the Court at least 16 days before the hearing. 

Therefore, notice is improper under California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1005(b). The Court must ensure that all parties have proper and timely notice to comport with due process. Due to Loya’s failure to provide adequate and timely notice, the Cout will not rule on the merits of the motion as the motion is procedurally improper. The Court DENIES Loya’s motion for leave to intervene WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

II.        Conclusion

            In sum, Loya’s motion for leave to intervene is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice.