Judge: Monica Bachner, Case: 20STCV38668, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38668    Hearing Date: August 18, 2022    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 71

TENTATIVE RULING

Non-Parties Hector Navarro, Anthony Pinkins, Kevin Malone, and Ruben Castro’s motion to intervene is denied.

Non-Parties Hector Navarro (“Navarro”), Anthony Pinkins (“Pinkins”), Kevin Malone (“Malone”), and Ruben Castro (“Castro”) (collectively, “Proposed Intervenors” or “Navarro Plaintiffs”), move for an order permitting them to intervene in the instant PAGA Action filed by Plaintiff Shimon Broshinsky (“Plaintiff”) against Defendants First Motor Group of Encino, LLC (“First Motor”), Motor Group of Los Angeles (“Motor Group”), Encino Motorcars, LLC (“Motorcars”), and Trophy Automotive Dealer Group, LLC (“Trophy”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for the purpose of assisting the Court in any proposed settlement of the instant action.  (Notice of Motion, pg. 2; C.C.P. §387.)  Plaintiff has filed an opposition to the motion, to which Defendants have filed a joinder.

Proposed Intervenors’ 4/21/22 request for judicial notice is granted; however, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in the pleadings. (RJN, Exhs. 1, 2.)

Plaintiff’s 8/5/22 request for judicial notice is granted; however, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of the matters asserted in the documents. (RJN, Exhs. D, E, F, I, J, K.) 

Background

Proposed Intervenors assert they are named plaintiffs, class members, and PAGA representatives in a separate action titled Pinkins et al. v. First Motor Group of Encino LLC et al., LASC Case No. BC719406 (“Navarro”) against Defendants, the complaint for which was filed on August 27, 2018.  The Court notes Navarro was first filed in the United States District Court, Central District of California, as a class action, on September 18, 2012, until the federal action was ultimately dismissed, prompting the filing of the state court action.  (Motion, pg. 4.)  On November 7, 2018, Navarro Plaintiffs filed first amended complaint (“FAC”) asserting eight causes of action against Defendants, including a PAGA cause of action (by Pinkins and Malone only).  On April 15, 2019, the Navarro parties stipulated to dismissal of the class claims, without prejudice, and to proceed with arbitration of Navarro Plaintiffs’ individual claims, while staying the 8^th (PAGA) cause of action pending arbitration, as reflected in the Court’s May 8, 2019 Order.  On June 7, 2021, the Navarro Court lifted the stay on Pinkins and Malone’s PAGA cause of action in light of the parties’ settlement agreements as to the individual claims. 

On October 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed his complaint in the instant action for civil penalties under the PAGA against Defendants.  On October 22, 2021, First Motor filed a Notice of Related Case in Navarro indicating the instant action had been filed, and on October 28, 2021, the Navarro Court deemed the two actions not related.  On March 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of settlement in the instant action, indicating that the parties had reached an agreement to settle the action in private mediation and that a Motion for Approval of PAGA Settlement would be filed within 30 days.  On April 20, 2022, Proposed Intervenors filed the instant motion for leave to file a complaint in intervention.  The Court notes the Proposed Complaint in Intervention appears to assert the same eight causes of action as the FAC in the Navarro action, including the individual claims purportedly settled in May 2021 and the PAGA claim brought by Pinkins and Malone.  On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order approving the PAGA Settlement together with a motion for attorneys’ fees, in connection with which a copy of the settlement was provided.  

Motion to Intervene

C.C.P. §387(b) provides that, “An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by… [j]oining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint[,]

[u]niting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff[,] [or]

[d]emanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.”

           “A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application [which] shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention… and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (C.C.P. §387(c).)

In the case of intervention as a right or compulsory intervention, “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if… [either] [a] provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene[,] [or] [t]he 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.” (C.C.P. §387(d)(1).)

In the case of permissive intervention, “[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.” (C.C.P. §387(d)(2).)  

The Court finds Proposed Intervenors are not entitled to intervene in the instant action.  As a preliminary matter, neither Plaintiff nor Proposed Intervenors acknowledge that Navarro’s PAGA claim is brought by Pinkins and Malone and is not brought by Navarro or Castro, and as such, it is unclear how Navarro and/or Castro, whose claims in Navarro have purportedly settled, have standing to intervene on behalf of a cause of action they do not even assert.  In addition, Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated they have a right to mandatory intervention in the action. The PAGA claim in the instant action does not belong to any particular aggrieved employee but is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of the LWDA of the State of California, the real party in interest. (See Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955, 970 (“Turrieta”) [“We agree with respondents and the trial court that due to the unique nature of PAGA, in which the state is the real party in interest, appellants had no personal interest in Turrieta and therefore are not “aggrieved parties” who may appeal from the judgment.”]; see also Saucillo v. Peck (9th Cir. 2022) 25 F.4th 1118, 1126-27.)  

In reply, Proposed Intervenors argue they have a direct and immediate interest in the action that may be impacted severely by the proposed settlement, which may extinguish some or the entirety of class and PAGA claims.  (Reply, pg. 7, citing Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969, 986 and Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56, 73 (“Moniz”).) The Court notes this argument fails to acknowledge Proposed Intervenors dismissed their class claims and that the PAGA claim is only asserted by Pinkins and Malone. The parties dispute whether the Court should follow Turrieta or Moniz in determining whether Proposed Intervenors have standing as PAGA plaintiffs in a separate action to intervene in the instant action.  (Opposition, pgs. 6-8, fn. 2; Reply, pgs. 7-8.)  However, in Moniz, the Court did not address standing in the context of intervention, but in the context of appeal, namely, whether a separate action’s PAGA plaintiff is entitled to appeal the fairness of a settlement as part of his or her role as an effective advocate for the state.  (Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc., supra, 72 Cal.App.5th at 73.)  Here, Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated a direct and immediate interest in the action requiring mandatory intervention. In addition, Proposed Intervenors have not provided evidence to suggest the LWDA is not adequately represented by the existing parties to warrant intervention.

As to permissive intervention, Proposed Intervenors have not demonstrated a direct and immediate interest in the instant action deriving from the fact that two of them are currently asserting a representative PAGA cause of action against the same Defendants in Navarro.  In addition, Proposed Intervenors contend their intervention would not enlarge issues in this action, as it will merely permit them to provide the Court with necessary information ensuring the interests of the State of California are protected.  (Motion, pgs. 8-9.)  However, Proposed Intervenors do not submit any information as to what this information may be, and they fail to acknowledge that the Proposed Complaint in Intervention does not only assert a PAGA claim, but includes seven other causes of action.  Moreover, the moving and reply papers assertions that the parties to the instant action have reverse auctioned so as to avoid attorneys’ fees purportedly owed to Proposed Intervenors’ counsel suggests their intention to recoup fees by way of intervention. The Court finds the interests opposing intervention outweigh Proposed Intervenors’ alleged interest in the action.

Based on the foregoing, Proposed Intervenors’ motion to intervene is denied.

Dated:  August _____, 2022

Hon. Monica Bachner

Judge of the Superior Court