Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV07237, Date: 2024-04-24 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV07237 Hearing Date: April 24, 2024 Dept: 29
Motion to Intervene
filed by Infinity Insurance Company
Tentative
The motion is granted.
Background
On February
28, 2022, Plaintiffs Jorge Gomez and Guadalupe Gomez (collectively,
“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for motor vehicle and general negligence
against Defendants Teron
Liggins, Trino Naranjo, and Does 1 through 100, arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on March 22, 2020.
On March
5, 2024, proposed intervenor
Infinity Insurance Company (“Infinity”) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene.
No opposition has been filed.
Legal Standard
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.”
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 p. 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
Infinity moves for an
order to intervene in this action.
Infinity is the insurance carrier for Defendant Trino Naranjo (“Naranjo”). (Wang Decl., ¶ 7.) Naranjo, however, has failed to communicate
with his counsel over a period of many months.
(Herrera Decl., ¶¶ 6-18.) Absent
intervention, and the opportunity to participate in this case on the merits, Infinity’s
financial interests could be negatively affected by Naranjo’s failure to
communicate with defense counsel.
Infinity has should good
cause and a sufficient interest in the action for intervention. All substantive and procedural requirements
are satisfied. The motion is granted.
Conclusion
The Court GRANTS Infinity’s motion to intervene.
The Court GRANTS LEAVE to Infinity to file the Complaint-in-Intervention
attached to its moving papers within 10 days.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.