Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 22TRCV01292, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV01292, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV01292 Hearing Date: October 2, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿

¿¿

HEARING DATE: 10/02/2024

¿¿

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV01292

¿¿

CASE NAME: Sarem v. Dempski, et al.

¿¿

MOVING PARTY: Intervenor, California Insurance Company

¿¿

RESPONDING PARTY: None (unopposed)

¿¿

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

¿¿

MOTION:¿ (1) Motion of California Insurance Company for Leave to Intervene

(2) CMC

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

(2) At CMC, parties should report what occurred at the Sept mediation

¿¿

I. BACKGROUND¿¿

¿¿

A. Factual¿¿

This action arises out of allegations of negligence claimed to have caused a motor vehicle collision. Amir Aziz Sarem (Plaintiff) alleges that on February 10, 2022, Michael James Dempski (Defendant) recklessly crashed his vehicle into Plaintiff’s vehicle at “Sofi stadium parking lot located at 1001 Stadium Dr, Inglewood, CA 90301.” (Compl., at p. 4-5.) Plaintiff alleges Defendant’s actions were the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s injuries and property damage. (Ibid.)

B. Procedural

Plaintiff filed this action against Defendant, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, LLC (Defendant), and Does 1 through 20 (Defendant) on November 18, 2022 alleging two causes of action: (1) Property Damage - Motor Vehicle and (2) General Negligence – Personal Injury. (Compl., at p. 3.)

On July 7, 2023, Defendant Dempski filed an answer denying all Plaintiff’s allegations. (Answer.) Defendant all pleads 21 affirmative defenses including Failure to State a Claim, Assumption of Risk, and expired Statute of Limitations. (Id. at ¶ 1, 4, 18.)

On July 29, 2024, California Insurance Company (Intervenor) filed a motion for leave to intervene pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 387 subdivisions (a) and (b) and Labor Code section 3853. (Mtn. to Intervene, pgs. 2:25-28, 3:1-10.) Intervenor states that Plaintiff’s injuries occurred during the course and scope of his employment and that Plaintiff’s employer was insured for workers’ compensation liability by Intervenor on the date of the accident. Intervenor alleges it has paid $105,000 in workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff split between medical expenses and indemnity payments as a result of the subject incident. (Id. at pg. 2:5-9.)

As of the date of this tentative, neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have filed an opposition.

¿II. ANALYSIS¿

Intervention occurs when “a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by . . . (1) Joining a plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint; (2) Uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff; or (3) Demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (b)(1)-(3).) Allowing nonparties to participate in litigation “‘protects the interests of others affected by the judgment, obviating delay and multiplicity.’” (Carlsbad Police Officers Ass’n v. City of Carlsbad (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 135, 148 (quoting People v. Superior Court (1976) 17 Cal.3d 732, 736).)

A. Legal Standard ¿

“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).)

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 who pays, or becomes obligated to pay salary in lieu of compensation, may also 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.) When the action is initiated by the employee, the employer may, “at any time before trial on the facts,” join as a party plaintiff. (Lab. Code, § 3853.)

If leave to intervene is granted by the court, the intervenor shall separately file the complaint in intervention and serve notice of the court’s decision to parties who have appeared. (Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (e)(1)-(2).)

B. Discussion

Intervenor’s motion is timely.

A request for leave to intervene must be timely. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subds. (d)(1) & (2).) A request based on an unconditional right to intervene should be exercised: (1) within the statutorily permitted timeframe; (2) before the suit is voluntarily dismissed; and (3) in most cases, before the statute of limitations runs on any new causes of action asserted in the pleading in intervention. (Mar v. Sakti Int’l (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1780, 1784-1785; Lohnes v. Astron Computer Prods. (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1153-1154; Basin Constr. Corp. v. Dept. of Water & Power of L.A. (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 819, 824.) “The relevant statute granting the right to intervene in a particular situation must be consulted to determine whether it addresses the timeliness issue.” (Mar, supra, 9 Cal.App.4th at p. 1784.)

Labor Code section 3853 “provides that the unconditional right to intervene” it confers “may be exercised ‘at any time before trial on the facts.’” (Id. at p. 1785.) An Intervenor may file its complaint even if the statute of limitations has run on a separate employer or employee claim. (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 207-210.) This standard “as incorporated into subdivision (b) of section 387, constitutes the governing rule of decision.” (Ibid.)

Here, Intervenor filed its motion for leave to intervene on July 29, 2024, and the court has not set a trial date. (See Minute Order (2/26/2024) (“Trial Setting Conference is scheduled for 10/02/2024 at 08:30 AM . . . ”).) Additionally, the court notes that while the one-year statute of limitations governs Plaintiff’s suit against a third party, Plaintiff filed this suit within the one-year statute of limitations (alleged injury occurred on February 10, 2022 and suit filed on November 18, 2022), and an employer or employee who has an unconditional right to intervene may intervene at any time prior to trial on the facts, and thereby avoid the one-year statute of limitations. (O’Dell v. Freightliner Corp. (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 645, 654.)

Accordingly, Intervenor’s motion is timely.

Intervenor has an unconditional right to intervene under Labor Code sections 3852 and 3853.

A nonparty moving for mandatory intervention must show that it has an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject to the action, such as a direct pecuniary interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B); Coalition for Fair Rent v. Abdelnour (1980) 107 Cal.App.3d 97, 115.)

California Labor Code section 3852 grants “employers” who pay or are obligated to pay worker’s compensation benefits for workplace injuries the unconditional right to bring an action for damages against third parties. (Lab. Code, § 3852; Bailey v. Reliance Insurance Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 449, 454.) The Labor Code defines “employer” as both employers and workers’ compensation carriers. (Lab. Code, § 3850(b) [“‘Employer’ includes insurer[.]”]; Lab. Code, § 3211 [“‘Insurer’ includes . . . any private company . . . authorized under the laws of this State to insure employers against liability for compensation . . . .”].)

Here, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code section 387, subdivision (d)(1)(A), the law confers an unconditional right as to Intervenor joining this action based on Labor Code section 3853. Plaintiff sustained the injury at issue on February 10, 2022 while in the course and scope of his employment to RCL Red Carpet Limousine Service Inc. (Intervenor’s Mtn. Leave to Intervene, pg. 2:3-5.) Intervenor contends that on February 10, 2022, Intervenor insured Plaintiff’s employer RCL Red Carpet Limousine Service Inc. for workers’ compensation. (Id., pg. 2:4-6.) Plaintiff filed a workers’ compensation claim, and Intervenor has been paying “benefits to and on behalf of Plaintiff” pursuant to the Labor Code. (Id. pg. 2:7-9; Declaration of Katherine J. Hanson [Hanson Decl.] – Exh. B “Amir Sarem – 164800 – Benefits Paid as of 07/19/2024.) Plaintiff indicates no opposition to this intervenor. Accordingly, because Intervenor has met its burden of showing it has a direct interest the subject of Plaintiff’s action, Intervenor has an unconditional right to intervene under Labor Code sections 3852 and 3853.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Intervenor’s motion.

Intervenor is ordered to give notice.