Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 19STCV35151, Date: 2024-11-26 Tentative Ruling
All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument. 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 you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court. This does not excuse a moving party's need to do one of the following: appear; submit; or take a matter off calendar by canceling the motion in the case reservation system before issuance of the tentative ruling if the matter moving party does not intend to proceed.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 19STCV35151 Hearing Date: November 26, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On October 2, 2019, Plaintiffs Amirabbas Rahimi Khoshavaz and Maryam Gharani (“Gharani”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier-CA”), IPO Painter (“Painter”), and Does 1-25 for negligence, negligence per se, and loss of consortium.
On November 6, 2019, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendant Chris Solidum as Doe 1.
Also on November 6, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Defendants Uber, Rasier, Rasier-CA, Painter, Chris Solidum (“Chris Solidum”), Oberly Solidum, and Does 1-25 for negligence and loss of consortium.
On January 10, 2020, Painter filed an answer. On January 29, 2020, Uber, Rasier-CA, and Rasier filed answers.
On June 29, 2020, Chris Solidum filed an answer. On July 29, 2020, Chris Solidum filed a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Painter and Roes 1-10 for indemnification, apportionment of fault, and declaratory relief. On August 28, 2020, Painter filed an answer.
On March 6, 2023, the Court granted Chris Solidum’s motion for terminating sanctions and dismissed Gharani with prejudice.
On March 10, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to stay the case pending Gharani’s appeal.
On July 19, 2023, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ counsel’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Gharani.
On January 23, 2024, the law firm Bremer Whyte Brown & O'Meara, LLP, filed a notice of association of counsel stating that the firm was associating into the case with Anne Gritzer of the law firm Edlin Gallagher Huie & Blum as counsel of record for Chris Solidum.
On March 4, 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Gharani’s appeal and issued the remittitur.
On April 18, 2024, the Court granted the motion of Michael E. Gallagher and Anne C. Gritzer to be relieved as counsel for Chris Solidum.
Also on April 18, 2024, the Court lifted the stay pending appeal.
On September 30, 2024, James River Insurance Company (“James River”) filed a motion for leave to file a complaint in intervention. The motion was set for hearing on November 26, 2024. On November 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an opposition. On November 18, 2024, James River filed a reply.
Trial is currently scheduled for January 23, 2025.
REQUESTS
James
River asks the Court for leave to intervene on behalf of Chris Solidum, its
insured.
LEGAL STANDARD
Code of Civil Procedure section 387 provides in part:
“(c) 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.
“(d) (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.
“(e) If leave to intervene is granted by the court, the intervenor shall do both of the following:
“(1) Separately file the complaint in intervention, answer in intervention, or both.
“(2) Serve a copy of the order, or notice of the court’s decision or order, granting leave to intervene and the pleadings in intervention as follows:
“(A) A party to the action or proceeding who has not yet appeared shall be served in the same manner for service of summons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2.
“(B) A party who has appeared in the action or proceeding, whether represented by an attorney or not represented by an attorney, shall be served in the same manner for service of summons pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 415.10) of Chapter 4 of Title 5 of Part 2, or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) of Title 14 of Part 2.”
(Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subds. (c), (d), (e).)
DISCUSSION
Chris Solidum is James River’s insured. James River asserts that it has attempted to contact and communicate Chris Solidum, without success, and may be obligated to pay any judgment against Chris Solidum. Therefore, according to James River, it has the right to intervene to protect its own interests. James River has submitted a proposed complaint-in-intervention.
Plaintiff
opposes the motion, arguing it is untimely because James River learned on March
19, 2024 that Chris Solidum refused to sign a substitution of attorney form but
did not move to intervene until September 30, 2024. Plaintiff also argues that “the five year
statutory deadline for bringing this case to trial is rapidly approaching in
January.” (Opposition p. 3.)
Plaintiff also argues that James River’s interests are adequately represented, making intervention unnecessary. Plaintiff does not, however, explain which party or parties are representing James River’s interests or why this representation is adequate.
Last, Plaintiff contends that Chris Solidum has cooperated with James River “throughout the litigation process” (Opposition p. 5), making intervention unnecessary. But Plaintiff has provided no evidence refuting James River’s assertion that its efforts to contact and communicate with Chris Solidum have been unsuccessful.
The Court grants the motion.
CONCLUSION
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.