Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV44439, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44439 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On December 26, 2021, Plaintiff Cheryl Dianne Fisher (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Patrick Ian Holbert (“Holbert”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), Rasier, LLC (“Rasier”), Rasier-CA, LLC (“Rasier-CA”), and Does 1-50 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence.
On February 7, 2022, Uber, Rasier, and Rasier-CA filed answers. On November 14, 2022, Holbert filed an answer.
On November 17, 2023, proposed defendant in intervention James River Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed a motion to intervene to be heard on February 27, 2024. (Intervenor also filed points and authorities supporting a motion for a protective order but did not file a motion for a protective order.) No opposition has been filed.
Trial is scheduled for July 8, 2024.
INTERVENOR’S REQUEST
Intervenor asks the Court to permit it to intervene in the action for Holbert.
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
Intervenor requests leave to intervene in this action because it is Holbert’s insurer but has been unable to contact him. As Holbert’s insurer, Intervenor has a direct interest in this matter and may be liable for any outcome adverse to Holbert such as a default judgment.
The Court grants the request.
CONCLUSION
Intervenor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.