Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 21STCV26023, Date: 2024-01-08 Tentative Ruling

MOVING PARTY: Proposed Intervenor State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”)

This action arises from a motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 15, 2019. On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff Vanessa Guerrero (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Juan Carlos Lopez-Blanco (“Juan Carlos”), Antonio Lopez-Blanco (“Antonio”), Martha Lopez-Blanco (“Martha”) (collectively, “Defendants”), and Does 1 to 20, alleging causes of action for: (1) General Negligence and (2) Motor Vehicle.[1]

Plaintiff filed proofs of service on September 1, 2022 indicating that Defendants were all served with the Summons and Complaint on August 29, 2022 by substituted service.

On June 2, 2023, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) filed and served the instant unopposed motion for leave to intervene on behalf of Defendants Juan Carlos, Antonio, and Martha (the “Motion”). The Motion is made on the grounds that State Farm cannot locate Defendants and they have failed to defend themselves in this matter.

The Motion is unopposed. Any opposition to the Motion was required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

“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, subd. (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, subd. (c).) “The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Ibid.)

A nonparty must be allowed to intervene if either of the following conditions are satisfied: (1) a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (2) the person seeking intervention claims an interest related 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)(A)-(B).) 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, subd. (d)(2).)

State Farm contends that it has a direct and immediate interest in the outcome of this litigation and its intervention should be granted as a matter of right.

“Pursuant to section 387 the trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene when the following factors are met: (1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) When a nonparty insurer intervenes, the nonparty insurer is deemed to not enlarge the issues in the case since the insurer will almost certainly assert the same defenses as their insured. (Id. at p. 388.)

“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damage, arises as a result of Insurance Code section 11580.” (Ibid.) “Section 11580 provides that a judgment creditor may proceed directly against any liability insurance covering the defendant, and obtain satisfaction of the judgment up to the amount of the policy limits.” (Ibid.) “[W]here the insurer may be subject to a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a third party action against the insured, intervention is appropriate.” (Ibid.) “[I]ntervention by an insurer is permitted where the insurer remains liable for any default judgment against the insured, and it has no means other than intervention to litigate liability or damage issues.” (Id. at p. 385.)

In support of the Motion, State Farm presents the declaration of its counsel, Destini C. Blunt (“Blunt”). Counsel states that State Farm is providing a defense to Defendants in this action pursuant to an insurance policy issued to Antonio and Martha. (Blunt Decl., ¶ 4.) State Farm considers Juan Carlos as an additional insured under the policy. (Id.) All efforts to communicate with Juan Carlos and Martha have been unsuccessful since the inception of the instant action. (Id., ¶ 5.) Counsel spoke with Antonio on March 20, 2023 regarding the need for Defendants to respond to Plaintiff’s discovery responses, however, counsel has been unable to speak with Antonio since then. (Id., ¶¶ 6-7.) Antonio thereafter became non-responsive to counsel’s attempts to communicate, and all efforts to locate and communicate with Antonio have failed. (Id., ¶ 8.) A private investigator was retained to locate Defendants, but the investigator was unable to make contact with Defendants. (Id., ¶ 9.) Since counsel’s initial contact with Antonio on March 20, 2023, Defendants have failed to respond to any of counsel’s communications. (Id., ¶ 10.) Defendants’ discovery responses therefore cannot be verified, and they cannot be produced for deposition despite Plaintiff’s repeated demands. (Id.)

The Court finds that allowing State Farm to intervene is appropriate. The Motion is procedurally proper. State Farm is seeking to intervene in this action to protect its own interests and that of Defendants. (Blunt Decl., ¶ 11.) It follows that State Farm has a direct and immediate interest in this action. Also, the Court finds that State Farm intervening in this action will not enlarge the issues in this litigation. State Farm is seeking to intervene due to Defendants’ non-responsiveness and the inability to locate Defendants. Lastly, Plaintiff presents no argument on why State Farm should not be allowed to intervene. The Motion is also unopposed which leads to an inference that it has merit pursuant to Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410.

The Motion is GRANTED. State Farm is ordered to separately file and serve the proposed Complaint-in-Intervention—which is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of Blunt in support of the Motion—with the Court within five calendar days of this Court’s order.

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.

Hon. Lee S. Arian

Judge of the Superior Court

[1] The Court refers to Defendants by their first names to avoid confusion given their common last name. The Court does not intend any disrespect by referring to the parties by their first names.