Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV23688, Date: 2022-12-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23688    Hearing Date: December 15, 2022    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 State Farm Automobile Insurance Company (Intervenor) seeks leave to intervene in this action per Code of Civil Procedure section 387.  Neither Plaintiff Neris Velasquez nor Defendant Miguel Santos Marcelo (Defendant) have filed oppositions to the motion.

ANALYSIS

            Code of Civil Procedure section 387 permits intervention in a pending action when the proposed intervenor has an interest in the matter that is the subject of the litigation, or in the success of any party.  Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subd. (b) provides, “if the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and 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 that person's interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).)  A liability insurer normally is not a party to an action by a third party against its insured, but may have the right to intervene in certain circumstances.  (See Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 220.)

Intervenor has demonstrated that it issued an insurance policy to Defendant.  That policy may obligate Intervenor to pay any judgment entered in favor of Plaintiff.  Defendant has failed to meaningfully participate in this action and Defendant’s counsel has lost contact with Defendant.  Accordingly, Defendant is not representing Intervenor’s interests in this action.  The Court therefore concludes that Intervenor has a sufficient interest in this matter to support its intervention in this case, which Defendant cannot protect. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            The Court grants Intervenor’s motion for leave to intervene and orders Intervenor to file and serve the answer in intervention within 20 days of the hearing on the motion.

Intervenor shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.