Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV24242, Date: 2025-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV24242    Hearing Date: February 14, 2025    Dept: 29

Williamson v. LA Clippers LLC
23STCV24242

Motion of Sedgwick to Intervene

Tentative

The motion is granted.

Background

On October 4, 2023, Todd Williamson (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against LA Clippers LLC (“Clippers”), University of Southern California (“USC”), and Does 1 through 45 for negligence – premises liability, negligence, and negligent hiring and retention of an employee arising out of an incident on October 17, 2021, in which Plaintiff alleges that he was attacked by an individual dressed as a mascot known as Chuck the Condor.

On November 13, 2023, Clippers filed an answer.

On January 12, 2024, USC filed an answer.

On September 6, 2024, Sedgwick filed a notice of lien as a non-party.

On January 15, 2025, Sedgwick 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).)

Subdivision (d) of Code of Civil Procedure section 387 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

The incident at issue occurred during the course of Plaintiff’s employment.  (Complaint, ¶ 14.)  Sedgwick, which now seeks to intervene, is the workers’ compensation carrier for Plaintiff’s employer.  (Fitzpatrick Decl., ¶ 5.) Sedgwick asserts that is has paid $34,385.51 in workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff. (Id., ¶ 6.) Plaintiff’s workers’ compensation claim remains open. (Id., ¶ 7.)

Sedgwick attaches a copy of the proposed complaint-in-intervention. (Exh. A.)

Sedgwick contends it has a statutory right to intervene under Labor Code section 3852. Labor Code section 3852 states, in part:

Any employer who pays, or becomes obligated to pay compensation, or who pays, or becomes obligated to pay salary in lieu of compensation, or who pays or becomes obligated to pay an amount to the Department of Industrial Relations pursuant to Section 4706.5, may likewise make a claim or bring an action against the third person. In the latter event the employer may recover in the same suit, in addition to the total amount of compensation, damages for which he or she was liable including all salary, wage, pension, or other emolument paid to the employee or to his or her dependents.

Further, Labor Code section 3853 contends:

If either the employee or the employer brings an action against such third person, he shall forthwith give to the other a copy of the complaint by personal service or certified mail. Proof of such service shall be filed in such action. If the action is brought by either the employer or employee, the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently.

As Sedgwick is the workers’ compensation carrier, which has paid $34,385.51 in benefits to Plaintiff, Sedgwick has a direct stake in this matter. Sedgwick can intervene under Labor Code sections 3852 & 3853.

Sedgwick has satisfied all substantive and procedural requirements for its motion. The motion is granted.

Conclusion

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

Sedgwick is granted leave to file the answer in intervention attached to the moving papers by February 21, 2025.

Moving Party is to give notice.