Judge Lee W. Tsao, Case Number: 23NWCV02922, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee W. Tsao, Case: 23NWCV02922, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23NWCV02922 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: C

GARIBAY VS. CINTAS CORPORATE SERVICES, INC.

CASE NO.: 23NWCV02922

HEARING: 4/24/24 @ 9:30 A.M.

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff-in-Intervention’s motion for leave to file complaint-in-intervention is GRANTED.

Moving Party to give NOTICE.

The motion is unopposed as of April 19, 2024.

This is a slip-and-fall case. On November 5, 2022, Plaintiff slipped and fell due to wet mats while he was at Thyssenkrupp – Copper & Brass Sales at 13338 Order Drive, Santa Fe Springs, California 90670. Defendant Cintas Corporate Services, Inc. allegedly negligently set wet mats and did not use reasonable care to prevent harm to Plaintiff.

Plaintiff-in-Intervention Sentry Casualty Company seeks leave to intervene in the complaint based on Labor Code section 3853 and Code of Civil Procedure section 387.

Discussion

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (d)(1).)

Where an employee brings an action for damages proximately caused by a third person, an employer who pays or becomes obligated to pay compensation, or salary in lieu of compensation, may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person. (Lab. Code, § 3852.) “[T]he employer may recover in the same suit, in addition to the total amount of compensation, damages for which he or she was liable including all salary, wage, pension, or other emolument paid to the employee or to his or her dependents.” (Ibid.)

“A workers’ compensation carrier is authorized to attempt recovery of benefits paid either through the maintenance of an independent action (Lab. Code, § 3852), intervention in the employee’s action (Lab. Code, § 3853), or assertion of lien rights in the employee’s recovery (Lab. Code, § 3856, subd. (b).)” (Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1015, fn. 7.)

Sentry Casualty Company seeks leave to file a complaint-in-intervention on grounds that Copper and Brass Sales, a division of Thyssenkrupp Materials, N.A., Inc. as Plaintiff’s employer, has a legal right to intervene and Sentry Casualty Company is subrogated to the rights of Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s employer.

In support, Sentry Casualty Company offers a declaration from its counsel who states that Sentry Casualty Company is the workers’ compensation carrier that insures Plaintiff’s employer, Copper and Brass Sales. (Decl. Salley, ¶ 3.) Sentry Casualty Company has become obligated to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff pursuant to the workers’ compensation laws of the state of California. (Decl. Salley, ¶ 5.)

Based on the above, the motion is granted. Intervenor shall separately file the complaint in intervention and serve notice of the court’s decision” to parties who have appeared. (Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (e).)