Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 22PSCV00944, Date: 2022-11-30 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

Case Number: 22PSCV00944    Hearing Date: November 30, 2022    Dept: O

Proposed Intervenor Jose Ticas Duran’s Motion for Leave to Intervene in Action is GRANTED.

Background   

Plaintiff Veronica Vargas De Ticas (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:

On December 23, 2021, Plaintiff’s 2019 Toyota Tacoma Double Cab SR/SR5, VIN No. STFAX5GNXKX144020 (“subject vehicle”) was rear-ended and sustained damages. The subject vehicle was insured by Defendant Century-National Insurance Company (“CNI”) on the above date. CNI has failed to provide Plaintiff with coverage benefits.

On August 30, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against CNI and Does 1-10 for:

1.                  Breach of Contract

2.                  Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

A Case Management Conference is set for January 12, 2023.

Legal Standard

“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 . . . , [u]niting with a defendant . . . [or] [d]emanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).)

“A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (c).) 

“The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied: (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. (B) The 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1) [emphasis added].) 

“The 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2) [emphasis added].)

Discussion

Proposed Intervenor Jose Ticas Duran (“Duran”) moves, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, for an order granting him leave to intervene in this action.

Duran seeks intervention as a matter of right pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 387, subdivision (d)(1)(B). Duran attests that Plaintiff is his wife and that the subject vehicle belongs to him. (Duran Decl., ¶¶ 2 and 3.) Duran is the holder of the insurance policy on the subject vehicle. (Id., ¶ 6.) Duran attests that Defendant is now claiming that, although Plaintiff is his wife, she is not the true policy holder or registered owner for the subject vehicle and thus cannot demand any benefits under the insurance policy. (Id., ¶ 5.) Duran states that any judgment entered in this action without his participation as a party will impair or impede his ability to protect his interest as the subject vehicle’s owner. (Id., ¶ 6.)

Duran’s proposed complaint in intervention likewise alleges that he has “a right to intervene in this action because he owns the subject damaged vehicle and is the policy holder under Defendant’s coverage contract.” (Proposed Complaint in Intervention, ¶ 4.)

The court determines that Duran has adequately demonstrated intervention as a matter of right. The motion is granted.