Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case 21STCV23428 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 21STCV23428, Date: 2023-04-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV23428 Hearing Date: April 27, 2023 Dept: SEC

Espinoza et al. v. Lakewood Regional Medical Center, et al.

CASE NO.: 21STCV23428

HEARING: 04/27/23

TENTATIVE ORDER

CNA Insurance Company’s motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.

On June 24, 2021, Plaintiffs Dolores Espinoza and Agustin Espinoza (collectively Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against Defendants Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Inc. (LRMC) and Radoslav Raychev, I, MD for medical malpractice.

On June 17, 2022, Defendant LRMC filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants (1) AMN Healthcare, Inc.; (2) John Boyle, RN; (3) Bhavik Thakkar, MD; (4) Barugar Ravi, MD; (5) Arthur F. Gelb Medical Corporation; and MOEs 1-30 for (1) total equitable indemnity; (2) partial equitable indemnity; (3) contribution and repayment; and (4) declaratory relief. On July 13, 2022, LRMC substituted Meditec Staffing Company (Meditec) as MOE 1.

On October 21, 2022, CNA Insurance Company (CNA) filed a motion to intervene on behalf of its insured Meditec in defense of LRMC’s cross-complaint. No opposition has been filed.

Judicial Notice

CNA’s unopposed request for judicial notice of print-outs of the California Secretary of State’s website relating to Meditec is granted. (Evidence Code § 452(h).)

Motion for Leave to Intervene

(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).)

To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists.¿ (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.)¿ “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case¿. . . .¿And section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.”¿ (Id.¿at 1200.)¿ “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment.¿ It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected.¿ ‘The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment¿. . . .’” (Timberidge¿Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa¿(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882 (citations and emphasis omitted).)

“During the period that a corporation is suspended for failure to pay taxes, it may not prosecute or defend an action . . . .” (Grell v. Laci Le Beau Corp. (1999) 73 Cal.App.4th 1300.)

“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. 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. (Citation.) Thus, where 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.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386-87.) “Subdivision (b) of section 19719 allows an insurance company to provide a defense for a suspended corporation in certain actions and, in connection with this defense, prosecute subrogation, contribution or indemnity rights in the name of the suspended corporation.” (Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212.)

CNA seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it has a direct and immediate interest in this action as Meditec’s insurer and may be exposed to liability pursuant to Insurance Code § 11580(b)(2).

CNA is granted leave to intervene because its insured is a suspended corporation and unable to defend itself and CNA may be subject to direct action under Insurance Code § 11580. LRMC has sued Meditec in its cross-complaint for indemnity, contribution, and declaratory relief. Meditec is currently a suspended corporation, thus, it cannot defend itself in this action. (Lo Decl., Exh. A.) Thus, LRMC may enter a default judgment against Meditec and may bring an action against its insurer CNA. Therefore, CNA is granted leave to intervene to protect its interests as the insurer of the suspended entity Meditec.

Accordingly, the motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.

CNA is ordered to file its answer in intervention within 10 days.