Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV08096, Date: 2025-03-25 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV08096 Hearing Date: March 25, 2025 Dept: 29
Vega v. TJX Companies, Inc.
22STCV08096
Motion to Substitute Real Party in Interest filed by Defendant/Cross-Complainant
Marshalls of CA, LLC.
Tentative
The motion is denied.
Background
On March 7, 2022, Patricia Vega (“Plaintiff”)
filed a complaint against TJX Companies, Inc. and Marshalls for general
negligence arising out an accident in which Plaintiff alleges that she was
injured when a fire extinguisher fell on to her foot.
On May 27, 2022, Marshalls of CA, LLC
(“Marshalls”) filed an answer and cross-complaint against Cintas Corporation
dba Cintas Fire Protection.
On September 1, 2022, Plaintiff amened her
complaint to name Cintas Corporation dba Cintas Fire Protection as Doe 1.
On September 9, 2022, Cintas Corporation 2
(“Cintas”) filed an answer to Marshalls’ cross-complaint and is own cross-complaint
against Marshalls.
On October 12, 2022, Marshalls filed an
answer to Cintas’ cross-complaint.
On June 24, 2024, the Court dismissed TJX
Companies on request of Plaintiff.
On August 30, 2024, the Court dismissed the
complaint with prejudice against all defendants on the request of Plaintiff.
What remains in this case are the
cross-complaints between Marshalls and Cintas.
On February 21, 2025, Marshalls filed this motion to substitute real party
interest as to Marshalls’ cross-complaint against Cintas. Marshalls seeks to
substitute Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) for Marshalls as cross-complainant.
On March 12, 2025, Cintas filed an opposition. On March 18, 2025, Marshalls
filed a reply.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision
(a)(1), “[t]he court may, in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be
proper, allow a party to amend any pleading.” Amendment may be allowed at any
time before or after commencement of trial. (Code Civ. Proc., § 576.)
Amendment is allowed to substitute in plaintiffs with standing
for original plaintiffs without standing.
(Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995,
1001.)
Discussion
Marshalls brings this motion to substitute in Zurich as
the real party in interest. Marshalls contends that Zurich is subrogated the
rights of Marshalls, and should be permitted to seek reimbursement of sums it
incurred in defending Marshalls in this matter.
However, Marshalls lone evidence to support the
subrogation is in its counsel’s declaration stating the “substantive
information is true and based on [his] own personal knowledge.” (Reeves Decl. ¶
2.) Other than counsel’s general statement, no evidence of the subrogation of
rights has been presented to the Court in support of the motion.
Cintas opposes Marshalls’ motion on the basis that no
proof of subrogation has been attached, nor authority allowing a subrogee to
assume the role as real party in interest. Cintas states that it has no opposition
to any request by Zurich to intervene.
On reply, Marshalls requests that, in the alternative,
Zurich be granted leave to intervene.
On this record, the Court finds that Marshalls has not
properly supported its motion to substitute Zurich as real party in interest. A moving party has the burden of presenting
evidence in support of its motion, and here Marshalls has not done so.
Accordingly, the motion is denied.
As to intervention, Marshalls did not request this relief
in its moving papers. The request is
denied without prejudice; this ruling does not preclude Zurich from seeking to
intervene (whether by motion or stipulation).
Conclusion
The Court DENIES the motion to substitute.
Moving Party is to give notice.