Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 22STCV36629, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 22STCV36629, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36629 Hearing Date: November 20, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Hearing Date: 11/20/24

CASE NO./NAME: 22STCV36629 ADAN DELGADILLO GONZALEZ vs PABLO LOPEZ BALTODANO, et al.

Moving Party: Defendant Hertz Vehicles

Responding Party: Unopposed

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: GRANTED

Legal Standard

CCP section 387(d) provides the following:

(1) 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.

(2) 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).)

Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Muller, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at 515.)

With respect to permissive intervention, “[w]hen the proper procedures are followed, the trial court has the discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene in litigation pending between others, provided that (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 838, 842 (quoting Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

Discussion

On November 21, 2022, Plaintiffs Adan Delgadillo Gonzales, Ana Rodriguez, Ariel Rodriguez, and Fabela Salome filed a Complaint against Defendants Pablo Lopez Baltodano and Hertz Vehicles, LLC. Mr. Baltodano’s employer rented a 2020 Chevrolet Cruz (“Rental Vehicle”) from Defendant Hertz, and Mr. Baltodano was operating the rental vehicle at the time of the incident. On May 3, 2023, counsel for Defendants Baltodano and Hertz filed an Answer, generally and specifically denying all liability and raising appropriate affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs subsequently served discovery requests on Defendant Baltodano. Despite defense counsel’s repeated efforts over the course of several months to contact Baltodano, he failed to respond. Defendant Hertz now moves the Court for leave to intervene in the action as the insurer for Pablo Lopez Baltodano so that Hertz may exercise its right to defend its interests and the interests of its insured, Baltodano.

Hertz Vehicles, LLC ("Hertz") has demonstrated a direct interest in the litigation, satisfying both mandatory and permissive intervention standards under Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Under the rental agreement, Hertz may owe a duty to defend and indemnify Defendant Pablo Lopez Baltodano. Hertz is potentially liable for any judgment against its renter, Mr. Baltodano, stemming from the motor vehicle accident involving a Hertz-owned vehicle. Given Mr. Baltodano’s lack of cooperation, Hertz's ability to protect its own interests would be severely impaired without intervention.

Hertz’s motion is timely, as it was filed promptly upon realizing that Mr. Baltodano was unresponsive despite extensive efforts to contact him via phone, text, and email over several months. Hertz has also shown that no existing party can adequately represent its interests because Mr. Baltodano has effectively abandoned his defense. Without intervention, Hertz could face irreparable harm, including potential liability for a default judgment under Insurance Code section 11580, without the opportunity to present defenses or respond to discovery on behalf of its insured.

Additionally, permissive intervention is appropriate because Hertz’s participation will not enlarge the issues in this case. Hertz seeks only to stand in the shoes of its insured and raise defenses that Mr. Baltodano would have raised had he cooperated. There is no indication that intervention would prejudice existing parties, and Hertz has complied with all procedural requirements, including the submission of a proposed complaint-in-intervention. Given the weight of Hertz's interest in defending its potential liability, the absence of opposition to its motion, and the lack of adequate representation by existing parties, the motion for intervention is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.