Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23DTCV05037, Date: 2025-02-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23DTCV05037    Hearing Date: February 26, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOTION FOR INTERVENTION

This matter arises from a motor vehicle collision that occurred on March 15, 2021. Defendant Joseph Corrado was a Lyft driver traveling to pick up a new passenger when the incident took place. Throughout multiple hearings before the Court, Corrado’s counsel has represented that he has been unable to reach Defendant, who has become unwilling or unable to participate in his own defense. As a result, the Court has already granted an order for evidentiary sanctions precluding Corrado from providing testimony regarding liability.

Anticipating further non-compliance by Corrado, his insurer, North Light Specialty Insurance Company, moves to file a complaint in intervention to preserve its interests pursuant to Defendant’s insurance policy. No opposition is filed.

Generally, a liability insurer cannot intervene in a tort action against its insured. The judgment in the tort action collaterally estops the insurer only on issues necessarily adjudicated—namely, the insured's liability and the amount of damages. It does not bind the insurer on coverage issues. (Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (Parks) (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1212.)

However, under CCP §387(a), permissive intervention is allowed if: (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the case; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the existing parties. Since a liability insurer agrees to pay any judgment against its insured (Ins. Code §11580(b)(2)), intervention becomes necessary to protect the insurer’s interests when the insured refuses to participate in the litigation because the insured may be obligated to satisfy any judgment rendered against the insured. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Sup. Ct. (Wells) (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386–387.)

The Court finds that North Light Specialty Insurance Company has adequately demonstrated Defendant’s unwillingness to participate in the litigation and has established a direct and immediate interest warranting intervention. No opposition has been filed indicating an interest of any existing party that outweighs the reasons for intervention.  Accordingly, the motion is granted, and the moving party is ordered to serve its pleading within 20 days of today.

MOTION FOR TERMINATING SANCTIONS

On January 10, 2025, the Court heard Plaintiff’s original motion for terminating sanctions. In issuing its ruling, the Court considered Defendant’s repeated failure to attend his deposition and defense counsel’s representation that they had been unable to contact Defendant. As a result, the Court issued evidentiary sanctions precluding Defendant Corrado from testifying regarding liability. While Defendant Corrado may introduce competent evidence from other sources, such as an accident reconstruction expert, he is barred from personally testifying on liability unless Plaintiff requests otherwise.

Following the hearing, on January 13, 2025, Plaintiff served a Third Amended Notice of Deposition for Defendant Corrado, setting the deposition for January 24, 2025. On January 17, 2025, Defendant served an objection, advising that the deposition was unilaterally scheduled and that Defendant and/or his counsel were unavailable on that date. The objection also stated, “Defendant will work with counsel on a mutually convenient alternative date.” Plaintiff’s counsel pressed for a date, but Defendant’s counsel responded, “Nothing’s changed since we filed our motion to be relieved—Mr. Corrado still has not responded to our attempts to reach him. If I was able to speak with him and get dates, I would absolutely provide them to you, but unfortunately, that’s not the case here.”

On January 29, 2025, the Court granted defense counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel.

Despite these facts, on January 24, 2025, Plaintiff proceeded with the deposition as noticed and now moves for terminating sanctions based on Defendant’s failure to attend.

The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiff’s argument. The Court never ordered Defendant to sit for his deposition in its January 10, 2025, order. The Court was already aware that defense counsel had been unable to reach Defendant, which is precisely why evidentiary sanctions were imposed—precluding Defendant from testifying on liability under the assumption that Plaintiff would not obtain his testimony. This is also why the Court did not order Defendant to appear for deposition.

Plaintiff was free to attempt to depose Defendant but cannot now claim surprise or prejudice when Defendant remained unavailable, as has been the case for months. Moreover, evidentiary sanctions were already imposed to address Defendant’s failure to appear. Plaintiff cannot use Defendant’s continued non-appearance as a basis for requesting terminating sanctions, which would grant an advantage Plaintiff would not have obtained had the deposition proceeded. A discovery sanction should not create a “windfall” for a party or place a party in a better position than it would have been if the opposing party had simply complied with its obligations under the Court’s orders and the Civil Discovery Act. (Rutledge v. Hewlett-Packard Co.¿(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1164, 1194.) Terminating sanctions are an extreme remedy used as a last resort, not for circumstances where the Court has already fashioned an appropriate sanction to remedy the issue.

Furthermore, the Court has granted Defendant’s insurance carrier’s motion to intervene, ensuring that Defendant’s case will be defended despite his absence.

Accordingly, the motion is denied.

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’s 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.