Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 21STCV27810, Date: 2023-03-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV27810 Hearing Date: March 2, 2023 Dept: 29
TENTATIVE
Proposed
Intervenor’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.
Legal
Standard
Code of Civil
Procedure section 387 sets forth the rules for intervention by a third-party in
an existing litigation. An intervention takes place when a nonparty,
deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other
persons by, either, joining a plaintiff claiming what is sought in the
complaint, uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff, or
demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).) A nonparty shall petition the court for
leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. (Id.,
§ 387, subd. (c).) The petition shall include a copy of the proposed
complaint in intervention or an answer in intervention, and set forth the
grounds upon which intervention rests. (Ibid.)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 387 provides for mandatory and permissive intervention by
this Court.
The Court shall,
upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or
proceeding if either of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) A provision
of law confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (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 deposition 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).)
The Court may,
upon timely application, 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).)
To establish a direct and
immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a
non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose
by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the
property or transaction at issue exists.¿ (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of
California¿(1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.)¿ “Whether the intervener’s
interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case¿. . . .¿And section
387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.”¿ (Id.¿at
1200.)¿ “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not
necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be
affected by the judgment.¿ It is enough that there be a substantial probability
that his interests will also be so affected.¿ ‘The purposes of intervention are
to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment¿. . . .’ ”¿ (Timberidge¿Enterprises,
Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa¿(1978) 86
Cal.App.3d 873, 881-82 (citations and emphasis omitted).)
Discussion
Proposed Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance Company (hereinafter, “Proposed
Intervenor”) presently moves for an Order granting leave to intervene in the
instant action, on the ground Proposed Intervenor has a direct and immediate
interest in the action as Defendant’s insurer.
(Mot., at p. 1:27-2:3 [“Prospective Intervenor has a direct and
immediate interest in the action as Defendant’s insurer and an insurer’s
exposure to direct liability pursuant to Ins. Code §11580(b)(2) is
sufficient to create a basis for insurer intervention in a third-party action
against its insured.”].)
Proposed Intervenor’s Motion
for Leave to Intervene previously came before the Court for hearing on January
10, 2023. (Minute Order Re: Hearing on
Motion for Leave to Intervene, filed January 10, 2023.) There, observing Proposed Intervenor was the
insurer Defendant at the time of the subject automobile collision, the Court
concluded there was good cause to permit Proposed Intervenor’s intervention in
this action in order to protect Proposed Intervenor’s interests. (Id., at p. 3.) While the Court was inclined to permit
Proposed Intervenor’s intervention in this action, the Court continued hearing
upon the present Motion as Proposed Intervenor failed to submit a copy of the
Answer-in-Intervention, as required by Code of Civil Procedure section 387,
subdivision (c). (Ibid.)
Proposed Intervenor’s Motion
for Leave to Intervene is now, once again, before the Court following the
aforementioned continuance. The Court
finds Proposed Intervenor has properly filed the requested Answer-in-Intervention,
pursuant to the Court’s instructions.
(Answer-in-Intervention, filed January 9, 2023.) Accordingly, the Court concludes Proposed
Intervenor’s requested intervention may be properly permitted, pursuant to Code
of Civil Procedure section 387. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 387.)
Conclusion
Proposed
Intervenor’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.
Proposed
Intervenor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.