Judge Serena R. Murillo, Case 20STCV07534 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV07534, Date: 2023-01-09 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07534 Hearing Date: January 9, 2023 Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

Proposed Intervenor Allstate Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

Legal Standard

Code of Civil Procedure, section 387, subdivision (d)(1) provides that the Court shall,

upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if “a provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene,” or “[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.”

Additionally, upon timely application, a court may “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).) “When the proper procedures are followed, the trial court has the discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene in litigation pending between others, provided that (1) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action; (2) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and (3) the reasons for intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action.” (Noya v. A.W. Coulter Trucking (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 838, 842 (quoting Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)

A court will determine the timeliness of a motion to intervene based on the date when a nonparty “knew or should have known their interests in the litigation were not being adequately represented.” (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274, 282.) In terms of the form of the petition, Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (c) provides that a nonparty “shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or by 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.”

Discussion

Allstate seeks leave to intervene on the behalf of Defendant.

Plaintiffs argue the motion is untimely. Plaintiffs contends that Allstate has been unable to locate Defendant since August 12, 2020. (Novik Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs argue that there were direct communications with Defendant’s counsel via telephone and email, regarding the Default, as early as September 4, 2020. (Id., ¶ 7.) On July 16, 2021, Allstate electronically submitted a stipulation to continue trial, which was rejected by this Court and returned to Allstate, “based on the following reason(s): Other - Default entered as Defendant Cristobal Linares-Gonzales on 9/04/20.” (Id., Exh. 9; July 16, 2021 Notice of Rejection.) Further, on February 28, 2022, Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion to Set Aside Default was denied. (February 28, 2022 Minute Order.)

It appears that Allstate knew or should have known that its interests were not being represented by Defendant, at the latest, since February 24, 2022, when it filed an ex parte application to set aside default judgment. Allstate does not explain the nine-month delay in bringing the instant motion. (In re Yokohama Specie Bank¿(1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545, 555–556 [“it is the general rule that a right to intervene¿should be asserted within a reasonable time and that the intervenor must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.”].)

However, as cited to by Allstate: “Timeliness is hardly a reason to bar intervention when a direct interest is demonstrated and the parties in interest have not shown any prejudice other than being required to prove their case.” (Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351.) While there is a pending default judgment against Defendant, allowing intervention would only require Plaintiffs to prove their case. Moreover, as Allstate points out, the parties have been litigating this case for the past two years, and thus, if there is any delay in this action, it is minimal. Thus, there would be no prejudice to Plaintiffs in allowing intervention.

Further, allowing intervention would not enlarge the issues, and Plaintiffs have not provided any argument that it would. (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court¿(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 387 [intervention would not enlarge issues in case because insurance company would “almost certainly assert the same defenses which would have been asserted by [defendant]”].)

Additionally, the reasons for intervention outweigh any of Plaintiffs’ oppositions. Allstate’s interests are not represented by Defendant, who has been unresponsive throughout litigation. Allstate would be responsible for damages owed to Plaintiffs by Defendant if Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against him. Allstate has shown that it has a direct and immediate interest because it stands to lose by operation of any judgment against it. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201 [non-party seeking intervention must show it stands to gain or lose by¿direct¿operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists]. If Defendant were found liable for the accident, Allstate would be responsible for paying damages to Plaintiffs. Defendant would certainly be liable if Plaintiffs obtained a default judgment against Defendant. If Allstate can intervene on Defendant’s behalf, then Allstate may reduce any damages owed to Plaintiffs.

Conclusion

For the reasons detailed above, Allstate’s motion is granted.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.