Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 20STCV41360, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling
INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:
1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.
2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and
3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.
If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on.
TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/u
Case Number: 20STCV41360 Hearing Date: September 28, 2022 Dept: A
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiff sustained disfiguring and
degloving injuries to his right hand while using a defective Bandag 8120 Tire
Buffing Machine that was manufactured and distributed by Defendants. Plaintiff
alleges claims for strict products liability and negligence.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Motion filed August 25, 2022
Moving party, Cannon Cochran
Management Services, Inc. (“Intervenor”) moves to intervene in this action.
Non-party, Lyneer Staffing Solutions (“Lyneer”), placed Plaintiff for
employment at Total Tires, Inc., (“Total Tires”) where the incident occurred. Intervenor
is the administrator for State National Insurance Company, who provided
worker’s compensation insurance to both Lyneer and Total Tires. Intervenor
argues it has an interest in this action since it provided insurance benefits
to Plaintiff allegedly caused by Defendants’ negligence. Intervenor’s proposed
Complaint-in-Intervention seeks recovery of the benefits paid to Plaintiff.
B.
Conditional non-opposition filed
September 14, 2022
Defendant, Bridgestone Bandag, LLC,
argues that while Intervenor’s right to intervene flows from the insurance
coverage provided, Intervenor contends that it will not participate in
discovery aimed at either Lyneer or Total Tires regarding their comparative
negligence. Defendant alleges substantial employer fault. Intervenor stands in
the shoes of its subrogors and should expect and respond to discovery.
Defendant asks for an Order to
Show Cause hearing and briefing schedule requiring Intervenor to state why it
should not be subrogated to the rights of Plaintiff’s employers and why it
should not participate in discovery.
The court’s file does not reflect
that Intervenor filed a reply to Defendant’s opposition.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
A party may intervene as a matter of right as a matter of right
if the party demonstrates an interest relating to the property or transaction
at issue and disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair that
party’s ability to protect the interest. Code Civ.
Proc., § 387 subd. (b). Permissive
intervention is proper where the intervenor shows a direct interest in the
outcome of the litigation between two other parties. Code Civ.
Proc., § 387(a).
An employer can
intervene in the employee’s suit if it becomes obligated to pay salary in lieu
of compensation. Lab. Code, §
3852.
An “employer” includes an “insurer” such as the State Compensation Insurance
Fund and a private company authorized to insure employers against liability for
compensation. Lab. Code, §
3211,
Lab. Code, §
3850.
IV.
DISCUSSION
Intervenor has demonstrated a
statutory right to intervene under the Labor Code given its status as an
insurer for the employers. Any conditions on intervention as Defendant suggests
is improper given the statutory mandate. Any issues that arise with respect to
discovery are governed by the Civil Discovery Act which is self-executing. Clement v. Alegre (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 1277, 1291 ["It is a central precept to the Civil Discovery Act of 1986
(§ 2016 et seq.) ... that civil discovery be essentially self-executing."].
V.
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, Intervenor’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.
Intervenor shall file its Complaint-in-Intervention forthwith. Defendant’s
request for an Order to Show Cause hearing is DENIED. The parties are
admonished to follow the Department’s instructions with respect to discovery
motions and the requirement for an Informal Discovery Conference with the court
prior to any hearings on motions to compel further responses.