Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV00769, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV00769    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: G

Intervenor Service American Indemnity Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Intervenor Service American Indemnity Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

Service American Indemnity Company’s proposed Complaint-in-Intervention is ordered to be filed separately as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is a premises liability action. In September 2021, Plaintiff Ashley Padilla suffered injuries after being hit on the head by a pallet that fell off a forklift. The alleged accident occurred at a site owned by Defendant Hometo Inc. (Hometo) in the City of Industry.

On March 15, 2023, Padilla filed a complaint against Hometo and Does 1-50, alleging causes of action for (1) general negligence and (2) premises liability.

On September 27, 2023, Service American Indemnity Company (Service) filed the present motion as an intervenor.

A hearing on the present motion is set for October 17, 2023, with a case management conference set for November 7.

ANALYSIS

Service moves to intervene in this action as the insurer for Padilla’s employer. For the following reasons, the court GRANTS their motion.

Legal Standard

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(1)(B), the court must allow a nonparty to intervene in an action upon timely application if “[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.”

Furthermore, the court may allow a nonparty to intervene in an action upon timely application “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).) “Intervention will generally be permitted 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.’” (Accurso v. In-N-Out Burgers (App. 2023) 313 Cal.Rptr.3d 51, 61, quoting City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1036.)

In addition to these general requirements for intervention, an employee’s employer or that employer’s insurance carrier can intervene in a lawsuit between the employee and a third-party tortfeasor. (Bailey v. Reliance Ins. Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th 449, 454, citing Lab. Code, § 3853.) This is because “[a]n employer who has paid workers’ compensation benefits to an injured employee has the right to be reimbursed for the sums paid and for certain other expenditures, except to the extent that fault attributable to the employer caused the worker’s civil damages.” (Southern Cal. Edison Co. v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 766, 769.) Intervention is allowed “at any time before trial on the facts.” (Lab. Code, § 3853.)

Discussion

In this case, the injury to Padilla occurred while Padilla was employed by and working for Fast Five Delivery, Inc., who was insured by Service. (Zaiderman Decl., ¶ 2.) Subsequently, Padilla filed a workers’ compensation claim and Service paid certain benefits to Padilla. (Zaiderman Decl., ¶ 2-4.) Service has also filed the present motion prior to any start of trial in the present action.

Accordingly, the court finds Service has a right to intervene as the insurer for Padilla’s employer and GRANTS their motion.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Service’s motion to intervene is GRANTED and its proposed complaint-in-intervention is ordered to be filed separately as of this date.