Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 24SMCV01247, Date: 2025-03-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24SMCV01247    Hearing Date: March 26, 2025    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

            On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff Jorge Juarez (“Plaintiff”) filed suit against Defendant Pacific Design Center (“Defendant”), alleging premises liability and general negligence, arising from a trip and fall. 

            Proposed Plaintiff-in-Intervention Chubb National Insurance Company (“Chubb”) now moves for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention against Defendant.  The motion is unopposed.

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).) 

Chubb cites to Labor Code section 3852, which grants an employer or its insurer the right to recover workers compensation benefits paid out to its injured employee from a third-party defendant.  Similarly, Labor Code section 3853 grants an employer or its insurer the right to intervene in its employee’s lawsuit. 

Chubb also cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (a), which permits a party with an interest in the matter to intervene, and subdivision (b), which permits a person to intervene that is so situated that the disposition of the case essentially requires that person. 

Chubb argues it is so situated by virtue of Labor Code section 3859, which provides that no release or settlement of any claim by the employee or employer (including its insurer) is valid without the written consent of both, and Labor Code section 3860, which provides no release or settlement is binding without the opportunity for the employer (including its insurer) to recover their subrogation damages under Section 3852.

In support, Chubb has provided the Declaration of Robert B. Salley, which provides:

2. That the above-entitled action involves JORGE JUAREZ, plaintiff therein, herein referred to as "EMPLOYEE;"

3. That said EMPLOYEE, at the time of the accident referred to in the Complaint on file herein, was employed by a company who was insured for workers' compensation insurance by CHUBB NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY;

4. That the injuries sustained by said EMPLOYEE, as alleged in the Complaint on file herein, were sustained while said EMPLOYEE was acting within the course and scope of his employment for INTERVENOR'S insured;

5. That INTERVENOR has become obligated to pay said EMPLOYEE certain sums of money for which INTERVENOR now has a subrogation claim pursuant to Labor Code§ 3852;

6. That in order to avoid a multiplicity of lawsuits, and since said action involves 20 identical facts, parties, and issues, said INTERVENOR desires to intervene into the case;

(Salley Decl. ¶¶ 2-6.) 

            Therefore, Chubb has provided both a legal and factual basis to support its request to intervene, and no party has opposed the request.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, the Court grants Chubb’s motion in its entirety.  Chubb shall file and serve the proposed complaint in intervention on or before April 11, 2025.

Further, Chubb shall provide notice of this Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED:  March 26, 2025                             ________________________________

                                                                        Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                        Judge of the Superior Court