Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV22637, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV22637    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND 

On September 19, 2023, Plaintiffs Miyoshi Umeki Dorsey (“Dorsey”) and Stephanie Rouse (“Rouse”) filed this action against Defendants Jun Chen (“Defendant”) and Does 1-25 for motor vehicle tort and general negligence. 

On March 28, 2024, Defendant filed an answer. 

On August 23, 2024, Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company (“Blue Hill”) filed a motion for leave to intervene.  The motion was set for hearing on October 2, 2024.  The Court continued the hearing to November 20, 2024.  No opposition has been filed. 

Trial is scheduled for March 18, 2025. 

PROPOSED INTERVENOR’S REQUEST 

Blue Hill asks the Court for leave to intervene on behalf of Defendant, Blue Hill’s 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).)

Blue Hill asserts that Defendant has stopped responding to his counsel and to Blue Hill. As Defendant’s insurer, Blue Hill may be obligated to pay any judgment against Defendant, giving Blue Hill the right to intervene to protect its own interests. 

Blue Hill has not, however, submitted a proposed answer-in-intervention.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)  The Court therefore denies the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court DENIES without prejudice Blue Hill Specialty Insurance Company’s motion for leave to intervene. 

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.