Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 23STCV23688, Date: 2024-12-03 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - JUDGE ANNE RICHARDSON - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 23STCV23688 Hearing Date: December 3, 2024 Dept: 40
23STCV23688
Gary R. Carlin, et al. v. Law Offices of Steven R. Young, APC, et al.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER
I. BACKGROUND
The complaint alleges that Plaintiffs
retained Defendants to represent them in an underlying action, Case No.
20STCF20277 Carlin, et al v. Buchsbaum, et al. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants were negligent in their handling of the case resulting in a lowered
settlement amount after Plaintiffs fired Defendants and retained new counsel.
Plaintiffs allege claims for professional negligence, breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and conversion.
II. ARGUMENTS
Defendant, Law Offices of
Steven R. Young, APLC, (“Defendant”) seeks leave to intervene in this action as
it has an interest in the property or transaction that is the subject matter of
the action. Intervenor’s interest in this litigation is that Plaintiffs owe
Defendant fees arising from Defendant’s handling of the underlying case. While
Defendant has malpractice insurance, Defendant’s insurer will only defend and
will not pursue a fee action on Defendant’s behalf.
In opposition, Plaintiffs
argue that the case on which Defendant
relies does not apply. Defendant is seeking a setoff in the amount of fees he
claims he is owed, which Defendant should have raised as a defense in his
answer. Defendant waited more than one year since the complaint was filed to
make this motion. Plaintiffs will suffer prejudice if Defendant is allowed to
intervene, as this will increase Plaintiffs’ litigation costs.
In reply, Defendant argues
that Plaintiffs have not offered any reason to deny the motion.
III. DISCUSSION
Intervention
is proper where a non-party party becomes a party to an action between “other
persons” by joining a plaintiff or uniting with a defendant in resisting
plaintiff’s claims. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 387 subd (b).) A non-party may intervene if the non-party is so
situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person’s
ability to protect an interest relating to the property or transaction at
issue. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 387 subd. (d)(1)(B.)
As Defendant is already
a party to this action with an ability to protect his interests in the form of
fees allegedly owed to Defendant in prosecuting the underlying matter,
intervention is not the appropriate remedy.
The
case Defendant cites states that a “third party” may intervene. Defendant is a
not a third party. Intervention "balances the interests of others who will
be affected by the judgment against the interests of the original parties in
pursuing their litigation unburdened by others”]." (Lindelli
v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1504–1505.)
Defendant claims unpaid fees arising from
the “same transaction occurrence or series of transactions” [sic] on which
Plaintiffs sue Defendant. (Mot. 4:17-21.) A “related cause of action” is one
that "arises out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of
transactions or occurrences as the cause of action which the plaintiff alleges
in his complaint." (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10.) Related causes of action are raised
by cross-complaint. (Code Civ. Proc., § 426.10 et seq.)
Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED.