Judge: Salvatore Sirna, Case: 23PSCV01728, Date: 2023-10-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV01728    Hearing Date: October 17, 2023    Dept: G

Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint-In-Intervention

Respondent: NO OPPOSITION

TENTATIVE RULING

Plaintiff-in-Intervention State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s Motion for Leave to File Complaint-In-Intervention is GRANTED.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company’s is ordered to file separately its Complaint-in-Intervention as of this date.

BACKGROUND

This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile collision. In January 2022, Plaintiff Bruce Tames was involved in an automobile collision with Defendants Zhirui Ma and Daniel Sanchez on Interstate 10 near White Avenue.

On June 8, 2023, Tames filed a complaint against Ma, Sanchez, and Does 1-10, alleging a cause of action for motor vehicle negligence.

On September 11, 2023, State Farm Fire and Casualty Company (State Farm) filed the present motion as an intervenor.

A hearing on the present motion is set for October 17, 2023, with a case management conference on November 9.

ANALYSIS

State Farm moves to intervene in this action as a plaintiff-in-intervention. 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 Tames occurred while Tames was employed by and working for Sea N Land Gourmet Foods, who was insured by State Farm. (Salley Decl., ¶ 2-4.) As a result, State Farm claims they have become obligated to pay certain benefits to Tames. (Salley Decl., ¶ 5.) State Farm has also filed the present motion prior to any start of trial in the present action. Accordingly, the court finds State Farm has a right to intervene as the insurer for Tames’ employer and GRANTS their motion.  

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, State Farm’s motion to intervene is GRANTED.  State Farm is ordered to file separately its complaint-in-intervention as of this date.