Judge Steven A. Ellis, Case Number: 21STCV12415, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 21STCV12415, Date: 2024-09-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV12415 Hearing Date: September 11, 2024 Dept: 29

Terada v. Lumenta
21STCV12415
Motion of Nonparty Infinity Insurance Company to Intervene

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On April 1, 2021, Monica Terada (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint in this action against Olvi Lumenta (“Lumenta”) and Does 1 through 40, asserting a single cause of action for negligence arising out of a motor vehicle accident on May 28, 2019.

On January 17, 2023, Plaintiff amended her complaint to name Olvi Lumenta (“Estate”) as Doe 1.

On June 22, 2023, Estate filed an answer to the complaint.

On August 14, 2024, nonparty Infinity Insurance Company (“Infinity”) filed this motion to intervene. No opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

“An intervention takes place when a¿nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes¿a party to an action or proceeding between other persons” and joins a plaintiff in seeking relief, unites with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff, or demands relief adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant. (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).)

Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d), provides as follows:

(1) “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 the person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.

(2) 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.”

“It is well settled that the intervener's interest in the matter in litigation must be direct, not consequential, and that it must be an interest which is proper to be determined in the action in which intervention is sought.”¿(Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California¿(1987)¿196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1199-1200.) 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.¿ (Id. at p. 1201.) It is sufficient that there is “a substantial probability” that the proposed intervenor’s interests will be affected by the judgment. (Timberidge¿Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa¿(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882.)

As one court has explained, a proposed intervenor must show: [1] that the proposed intervenor has “an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action”; [2] that the proposed intervenor is “so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest”; and [3] that the proposed intervenor “is not adequately represented by existing parties.” (Edwards v. Heartland Payment Sys., Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732.)

“Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case.” (Simpson Redwood Co., supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at p. 1200.) “[S]ection 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.”¿ (Ibid.)¿

Procedurally, subdivision (c) of section 387 requires that a motion to intervene “shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.”¿

Discussion

In connection with the accident at issue in this litigation, Defendant Lumenta was insured under a policy underwritten by proposed intervenor Infinity. (Dilag Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.)

Insurance Code section 11580, subdivision (b)(2), states that insurance policies covered by the statute must contain:

“A provision that whenever judgment is secured against the insured or the executor or administrator of a deceased insured in an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage, then an action may be brought against the insurer on the policy and subject to its terms and limitations, by such judgment creditor to recover on the judgment.”

Accordingly, under the terms of the policy and Insurance Code section 11580, Infinity is potentially liable for any judgment in this action entered against Defendant Lumenta or Defendant Estate. This provides Infinity with a sufficient basis to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387.

Infinity has satisfied all substantive and procedural requirements for this motion.

Accordingly, the motion is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS Infinity’s motion for leave to intervene.

The Court GRANTS Infinity LEAVE to file the proposed Answer-in-Intervention attached to the moving papers within 10 days of the hearing.

The Court ORDERS Infinity to give notice.