SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

 

I. Background 

On October 4, 2021, Plaintiff Bao Lai Li (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendant The Organic Laundry for injuries allegedly arising from assault and battery, which Plaintiff sustained while working at Metro Plaza Hotel. 

At this time, petitioner Employers Assurance Company (“EAC”) moves for leave to intervene in the case, contending it is the workers’ compensation administrator that ensured Plaintiff’s employer, Metro Plaza Hotel, Inc. EAC avers it has paid and continues to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff because of the incident. EAC seeks to intervene in the action to seek reimbursement of the workers’ compensation benefits it has paid.  

The motion is unopposed. 

 

II. Discussion  

“If any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene or 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).)    

Where an employee brings an action for damages proximately caused by a third person, an employer who pays or becomes obligated to pay compensation, or salary in lieu of compensation, may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person.  (Lab. Code, § 3852.)  “[T]he employer may recover in the same suit, in addition to the total amount of compensation, damages for which he or she was liable including all salary, wage, pension, or other emolument paid to the employee or to his or her dependents.”  (Ibid.)  

“A workers’ compensation carrier is authorized to attempt recovery of benefits paid either through the maintenance of an independent action (Lab. Code, § 3852), intervention in the employee’s action (Lab. Code, § 3853), or assertion of lien rights in the employee’s recovery (Lab. Code, § 3856, subd. (b).)”  (Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1015, fn. 7.) 

Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3853 make clear that an employer against whom a claim for worker’s compensation damages was made may join in an action against a third party arising out of the incident for which the worker’s compensation payment was made. § 3850(b) defines “employer” to include the employer’s insurer. EAC has demonstrated an unconditional right to intervene in this action.  Therefore, the unopposed motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.   

Intervenor EAC is ordered to file its proposed Complaint-in-Intervention within ten (10) days of the date of this Order.   

 

EAC is ordered to give notice. 

 

 

Dated this 24th day of January 2024