Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff, Case: 22STCP01458, Date: 2022-10-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCP01458    Hearing Date: October 12, 2022    Dept: 86

IN THE MATTER OF LOS ANGELES TRADING COMPANY, LLC

Case Number: 22STCP01458

Hearing Date: October 12, 2022

[Tentative]       ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Prospective Intervenor Fraser Ross moves to intervene in this proceeding pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Petitioner filed a notice of non-opposition.  

The motion is granted.

APPLICABLE LAW

“An 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. [¶] (3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).) By allowing nonparties to participate in litigation, Code of Civil Procedure section 387 “protects the interests of others affected by the judgment, obviating delay and multiplicity.” (People v. Superior Court (Good) (1976) 17 Cal.3d 732, 736.)

There are two forms of intervention: mandatory and permissive.

Under subdivision (d)(1)(B) of Code of Civil Procedure section 387, governing mandatory intervention, a trial court “shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding” if that person “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 of the existing parties.” In other words, to establish a mandatory right to intervene, the nonparty must: (1) show a protectable interest in the subject of the action, (2) demonstrate the disposition of the action may impair or impede the nonparty’s ability to protect that interest; and (3) demonstrate the nonparty’s interests are not adequately represented by the existing parties. (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732.) The criteria for mandatory intervention are virtually identical to those of compulsory joinder of an indispensable party. (Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 556; see Code Civ. Proc. § 389, subd. (a).)

If intervention is not mandatory, leave to intervene may nonetheless be granted. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(2), “[t]he 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.” Permissive intervention is appropriate if: “(1) the proper procedures have been followed; (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386; see City of Malibu v. California Coastal Com. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 897, 902.)

ANALYSIS

Ross seeks to intervene under both the mandatory and permissive grounds set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Ross filed an answer-in-intervention.

The petition seeks to dissolve Los Angeles Trading Company, LLC (LATC) and liquidate its assets. Ross represents he is a fifty percent owner of LATC.

Ross filed a separate, related action in this court against Petitioner Jonny Tucker—entitled Ross v. Tucker, et al., Case No. 22STCV18523 (the Related Case)—which seeks a judicial declaration of Ross’ ownership rights in LATC, and also requests an accounting of corporate assets and other relief from Tucker and his wife, Carolyn Tucker, related to their management of LATC and its assets.

Ross persuasively argues, given his assertion of ownership rights in LATC, a judgment dissolving LATC and dispersing its assets would prejudice Ross’ ability to protect the interests he has asserted in the Related Case, including Ross’ request for a judicial declaration of his fifty percent stake in LATC, his derivative claims against Tucker on behalf of LATC, and his request for an accounting of assets allegedly taken from the LATC by Tucker. Additionally, a judgement in this action could lead to inconsistent judgments in the Related Case.

Accordingly, Ross is entitled to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 because he has a direct interest in the matter at issue in the litigation, intervention would not enlarge the scope of the action, and intervention would not prejudice and is not opposed by any party.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is granted.   

IT IS SO ORDERED.

October 12, 2022                                                                   ________________________________

                                                                                                                   Hon. Mitchell Beckloff

                                                                                                                   Judge of the Superior Court