Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV08900, Date: 2023-08-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV08900    Hearing Date: August 7, 2023    Dept: 29

TENTATIVE

The Motion for Leave to Intervene in Action is GRANTED.

Background

This action stems from a personal injury sustained by Christopher Michael (“Plaintiff”) on March 12, 2020, when Plaintiff, while working, slipped and fell on tile that he alleges was inappropriate for the restaurant he worked at, located in West Hollywood, California. (Complaint, ¶¶ GN-1 and L-1.)   

Plaintiff filed their Complaint on March 11, 2022. The instant Motion for Leave to Intervene (“Motion”) was filed by Norguard Insurance Company on June 15, 2023. No Opposition Papers to the Motion have been filed.

Legal Standard

“The trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where: (1) the proper procedures have been followed, (2) the nonparty has a direct and immediate interest in the action, (3) the intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation, and (4) the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by the parties presently in the action….” (Chavez v. Netflix (2008) 162 Cal.App.4^th 43, 51.) Additionally, employers and insurance companies have the right to be reimbursed for amounts paid to the injured employee. (Bailey v. Reliance Ins. Co. (2000) 79 Cal.App.4^th 449, 454.) Finally, intervention must be sought before trial. (Labor Code § 3853.)

Discussion

Norguard Insurance Company seeks to intervene in the current action claiming they are entitled to reimbursement for monies paid to Plaintiff.

Norguard Insurance Company has followed the proper procedures in a timely manner and makes a sufficient showing for intervention: it has a direct interest in the litigation, there is little risk the issues in litigation will be enlarged, and no opposition has been filed.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Intervene in Action is GRANTED.