Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV04108, Date: 2024-07-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV04108    Hearing Date: July 19, 2024    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 July 19, 2024

¿¿¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23TRCV04108

¿¿¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, et al. 

¿¿¿ ¿¿¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Intervenor, Pablo Sierra

OPPOSING PARTY:             Plaintiff, Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc. or Defendant, City of Los Angeles (No Opposition Filed)

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

¿¿¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Motion of Pablo Sierra for Leave to Intervene  

¿¿ 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED.

¿¿ 

¿¿ 

I. BACKGROUND¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

A. Factual¿¿¿ 

¿¿¿ 

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff, Sedgwick Claims Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, City of Los Angeles, and DOES 1 through 50. The complaint is for reimbursement for workers’ compensation expenditures. Plaintiff’s complaint contends that Plaintiff is a third party administrator for workers’ compensation benefits paid under a policy of insurance issued to Total Airport Services, Inc. (“insured”) by Starr Indemnity & Liability Company. (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff contends that it is obligated to pay workers’ compensation benefits to employees of insured, including Pablo Sierra. (Complaint, ¶ 1.) Plaintiff alleges that at all times relevant, specifically December 8, 2022, Plaintiff expended benefits to and on behalf of the insured’s employee, injured worker Pablo Sierra, for workers’ compensation claims.

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff contends that Pablo Sierra was in the course and scope of his employment with the aforementioned insured when his vehicle was at a stop sign and Defendants garbage truck turned in front of Plaintiff’s insured’s vehicle, hitting the front end of the vehicle and causing injuries to said employee. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendant’s negligence, Plaintiff became obligated to pay and did pay workers’ compensation benefits to and on behalf of Pablo Sierra in the total sum of $24,584.64 and continuing, and Plaintiff will become obligated to pay further benefits in sums not yet fully determined for medical treatment and medical liens which will be specified by amendment when determined or proved. As such, Plaintiff is seeking reimbursement of benefits paid and payable to and on behalf of Pablo Sierra.

Now, Pablo Sierra seeks to intervene in the action.

B. Procedural¿¿¿ 

¿¿ 

On June 24, 2024, Intervenor, Pablo Sierra filed this Motion for Leave to Intervene. To date, no opposition has been filed.  

¿II. ANALYSIS¿¿ 

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(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(d)(1).) 

Where an employer 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 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.) When the action is initiated by the employer, the employee may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as a party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently. (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(e).) 

B.     Discussion

            Here, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 387, subdivision (d)(1)(A), the law confers an unconditional right as to Pablo Sierra intervening in this action based on Labor Code, section 3853. Intervenor contends that upon retaining his own counsel to recover his own personal injury damages, Mr. Sierra was unaware of who owned the garbage truck which crashed into his vehicle. As such, Intervenor’s counsel began an investigation as to the proper Defendants to sue were. Prior to making his own suit, Intervenor notes that counsel for Plaintiff contacted Intervenor’s counsel and made them aware of Plaintiff’s complaint. Intervenor’s counsel met and conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel to determine whether it would be opposed to Mr. Sierra intervening into this action. Plaintiff indicated no opposition.

            This Court notes that while the one-year statute of limitations governs both employee’s and employer’s suit against a third party, Plaintiff filed this suit within the one-year statute of limitations, and an employer or employee who has an unconditional right to intervene may intervene in the other’s lawsuit 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.)

            Here, because Plaintiff filed within the one-year statute of limitations period, and because Intervenor is seeking intervention prior to trial on the facts, and also holds an unconditional right to intervene, Intervenor’s motion is GRANTED.

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, Intervenor, Pablo Sierra’s Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.  

            Intervenor is ordered to give notice.