Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 24SMCV04473, Date: 2025-04-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24SMCV04473 Hearing Date: April 8, 2025 Dept: M
CASE NAME: Gillett, v. Melgarejo,
et al.
CASE NO.: 24SMCV04473
MOTION: Motion
to Intervene
HEARING DATE: 4/8/2025
Legal
Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 387, a nonparty (“intervenor”) may become a party to an action or
proceeding between other persons by joining a plaintiff in claiming what is
sought by the complaint, uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a
plaintiff, or demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.
(CCP §387(b).) “The purpose of allowing
intervention is to promote fairness by involving all parties potentially
affected by a judgment.” (Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 1499, 1504.)
CCP section 387 allows intervention
on either a mandatory or permissive basis. “A nonparty has a right… to
intervene in a pending action ‘if the person seeking intervention [a] claims an
interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the
action and [b] that person is so situated that the disposition of the action
may as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect
that interest, unless [c] that person's interest is adequately represented by
existing parties.’ ” (Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130
Cal.App.4th 540, 547.)
The Court may permit
intervention “(1) where the proposed intervenor has a direct interest, (2)
intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation, and (3) the reasons
for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the present parties.’ ” (Lindelli
v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1504.)
The Court must determine, as a question
of fact, whether the petitioner has a direct interest in the matter. (Muller
v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515.) The burden rests on the one
seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Id.)
“For an interest to be direct and immediate, the interest “must be of such a
direct and immediate nature that the moving party will either gain or lose by
the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment. A person has a direct
interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action
of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to
right and duties not involved in the litigation. Conversely, [a]n interest is
consequential and thus insufficient for intervention when the action in which
intervention is sought does not directly affect it although the results of the
action may indirectly benefit or harm its owner.” (City and County of San
Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037,
quotations and citations omitted.)
The application must also be
“timely”. (CCP §387.) Whether the motion is timely depends on the date the
proposed interveners knew or should have known their interests in the
litigation were not being adequately represented. (Ziani Homeowners
Association v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274, 282.)
A nonparty’s petition for
intervention must include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or
answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.
(CCP §387(c).)
If the court grants leave to
intervene, the intervenor must separately file the complaint in intervention,
answer in intervention, or both, and serve notice of the court's order granting
leave to intervene and the pleadings on all parties. (CCP §387(e).)
ANALYSIS
Intervenor City of Santa Monica
moves for leave to file a Complaint-in-Intervention (CI). Intervenor attaches a
copy of the proposed pleading. (Brown Decl., Ex. A.) Intervenor shows the
requirements of permissive intervention. First, they claim a direct interest in
the subject matter of this suit. The underlying complaint alleges that on
September 17, 2022, Defendants Melgarejo and the Tran & Nguyn Family Trust
negligently operated a 2011 Toyota Prius, causing a serious collision which
injured Plaintiff Gillett. The proposed CI alleges that Gillett was working
within the scope of his employment with the Intervenor on that date. (CI ¶4.)
As a result, Intervenor had to pay workers compensation benefits to or on
behalf of Lawerence Gillett, including medical, temporary disability, permanent
disability, vocational rehabilitation and administrative expenses. (CI ¶ 5.) The
proposed subrogation action will not enlarge the issues of the negligence litigation,
since each seeks the same recovery on the same general theories against
Defendants. Lastly, no present party opposes the intervention.
Intervenor timely made this motion.
They learned of this present action only a few weeks before bringing this
motion. Intervenor diligently searched for defendant Melgarejo and his insurance
company, but it was unsuccessful. (Brown Decl. ¶ 2.) Counsel only learned of
the present action from the City’s third-party workers compensation
administrator on October 1, 2024. (Brown Decl. ¶ 3.) Gillett’s counsel notified
counsel that Melgarajo was attached to an insurance policy in the name of the
Tran & Nguyen Trust. (Brown Decl. ¿ 4.)
Intervenor also cites a provision
of law which confers a right to intervene to claim workers’ compensation
subrogation. Labor Code section 3852 relevantly states: “Any employer who pays,
or becomes obligated to pay [workers’] compensation… may likewise make a claim
or bring an action against the third person. In the latter event the 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.” Lab. Code section
3853 further provides that when an employee brings an action against a third
party, “the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party
plaintiff.”
Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.