Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV49846, Date: 2023-03-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV49846    Hearing Date: March 15, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company (Intervenor) seeks leave to intervene in this action per Code of Civil Procedure section 387.  Plaintiff Chastity Richkardy (Plaintiff) opposes the motion.  

ANALYSIS

Per the Code of Civil Procedure, “[a]n intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following: (1) Joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint[;] (2) Uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff[; or] (3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).)  “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[; or] (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.  [Also] 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)-(2).) 

Here, Intervenor advances the declaration of counsel for Intervenor, Robert Carl (Counsel).  Counsel states that Intervenor is the insurance carrier that provided an automobile policy to Defendant Italia Garcia Reyes, that was effective during the underlying motor vehicle collision.  (Declaration of Robert Carl, ¶ 3.)  Counsel further states that after being assigned this case, Defendant’s counsel and Intervenor made exhaustive attempts to contact and maintain contact with the Defendants, which were unsuccessful in obtaining Defendants’ cooperation with litigation or trial. (Declaration of Robert Carl, ¶ 3.)  Counsel avers that on August 4, 2021, a representative from Chavez Legal group contacted the Defendant, Anthony Delgado, and obtained an authorization from him to represent him in the matter at hand, and that this is the only successful contact that was made with either Defendant by Chavez Legal Group.  (Declaration of Robert Carl, ¶ 6.)  Since then, after numerous attempts by private investigators to make contact with both Defendant Anthony Delgado, and Defendant Italia Garcia Reyes, Chavez Law Group has been unable to connect with either Defendant.  (Declaration of Robert Carl, ¶¶ 7-15.) 

The Court finds that Intervenor has met its burden to establish a factual and legal basis to intervene in the action per Code of Civil Procedure section 387.  To wit, Intervenor has adequately shown that “that the disposition of the action may impair or impede [Intervenor’s] ability to protect” its related interests.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues Intervenor’s motion should be denied for four reasons.  First, Plaintiff argues Intervenor does not qualify as a nonparty, as is required in Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d), because Intervenor and Defendant Anthony Delgado are represented by the same law firm.  However, Plaintiff fails to cite to any authority in support of this proposition.

Second, Plaintiff argues that Intervenor does not stand in the shoes of insured but is a completely separate Defendant.  Plaintiff further states that Intervenor should not be able to verify the discovery responses of Defendant Anthony Delgado.  The Court finds this argument to be irrelevant to whether Intervenor has met the statutory criteria to intervene. 

Third, Plaintiff attests that Intervenor’s motion is untimely.  However, the Court finds that based on Intervenor’s Counsel’s last attempt to contact Defendant Anthony Delgado in July, 2022, Intervenor’s application in August, 2022, is reasonable. 

Finally, Plaintiff argues that if the Court allows Intervenor to intervene it will enlarge the issues in this litigation based on Intervenor’s inability to answer discovery on the behalf of Anthony Delgado.  Against, the Court finds this argument to be unavailing.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants Intervenor’s motion for leave to intervene pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, and orders Intervenor to file and serve its Complaint-in-Intervention as required under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (e), within 20 days of the hearing on the motion. 

Intervenor shall provide notice of this Court’s orders and file a proof of service of such.