Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Case Number: 22STCV15906, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.

If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.

2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.

3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.

MOVING PARTY: Proposed Plaintiffs-In-Intervention Andrew Tom, Joseph Giesregen, Ian Patrick Soriano, Edward Scott Barkley, and Daniel Stalie

RESPONDING PARTY(S): Defendants L&HM Limited Partnership; Steve Sungho Lee; ST & Company LLC; Stelee Industries, Inc.; SL Property Management I, LLC; SL Property Management II, LLC; L&H Limited Partnership; DCM Distributions, LLC; Devendra C. Munyal; ST & Company, LLC; Raheel Lakhany; Green Buddha LLC; Shafaq Aslam Satar; Shahid Jumani; and Raheel Lahkany.

1. An Order allowing Intervenors to file the proposed Complaint-In-Intervention.

On May 12, 2022, Plaintiff City of Los Angeles (Plaintiff or City) filed a Complaint against Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, Stelee Industries, Inc., SL Property Manageent I LLC, SL Property Management II LLC, L & H Limited Partnership, Bio Hazard Inc., Minh V. Co, Green Buddah LLC, Raheela Lakhany, Smoke Tokes LLC, Shafaq Aslam Sattar, ST & Company, LLC, and L&HM Limited Partnership (Defendants) with five causes of action for: (1) Civil Code § 1714.9, (2) Strict Liability (Ultrahazardous Activity), (3) Negligence, (4) Premises Liability, and (5) Property Damage.

According to the Complaint, City LA Fire Department employees (the firefighters) were injured in a massive explosion at 327 Boyd Street, Los Angeles (aka “Bong Row”). Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants stored hundreds of illegally and improperly stored butane canisters and thousands of illegally and improperly stored nitrous oxide cylinders at the property. Plaintiff additionally alleges that these explosive materials were stored in such a way to negligently or intentionally conceal their contents from the firefighters.

On July 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a notice of related cases identifying: (1) Case No. 21STCV07268 Edwin Import, Inc., et al. v. City of Los Angeles, et al.; (2) 21STCV34010 Victor Aguirre, et al. v. Steve Sungho Lee, et al.; (3) 22STCV12786 Stephen Osterberg v. Steve Sungho Lee, et al.; (4) 22STCV15019 Kenneth Fraser, et al. v. Steve Sunghi [sic] Lee, et al.; and (5) Nicholas Estrada v. Steve Sungho Lee, et al. All but the last case are in Dept. 51. The last case is in Dept. 29.

On July 28, 2022, Defendants Steve Sungho Lee, Stelee Industries, Inc., SL Property Management I, LLC, SL Property Management II, LLC, L&HM Limited Partnership, and L&H Limited Partnership (the Lee Defendants) filed an Answer. The Lee Defendants also filed a Cross-Complaint against Green Buddha LLC, Smoke Tokes, LLC, ST & Company, LLC, DCM Distributions, LLC, Raheel Lakhany, Shafaq Sattar, and Devendra C. Munyal for: (1) equitable indemnity, (2) apportionment, (3) & (4) express indemnity, (5) & (6) breach of contract, (7) & (8) declaratory relief, (9) & (10) breach of contract, and (11) declaratory relief.

On August 5, 2022, Plaintiff filed notices of pending action to D. Stalie, S. Saenz, A. Tom, B. Ventura, J. Giesregen, E. Barkley, I. Soriano, and L. Salas.

On August 29, 2022, Raheel Lakhany and ST & Company, LLC filed answers to the Lee Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.

On September 2, 2022, Green Buddha LLC and Shafaq Sattar filed an answer to the Lee Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.

On October 20, 2022, Devendra C. Munyal and DCM Distributions, LLC filed an answer to the Lee Defendants’ Cross-Complaint.

On January 12, 2023, Defendants Green Buddha LLC and Shafaq Aslam Sattar filed an answer to the Complaint.

On December 11, 2024, Proposed Plaintiffs-In-Intervention Andrew Tom, Joseph Giesregen, Ian Patrick Soriano, Edward Scott Barkley, and Daniel Stalie (Intervenors) filed the instant motion for leave to intervene.

On February 3, 2025, the Lee Defendants, Cross-Defendants Devendra C. Munyal and DCM Distributions, LLC (the DCM Defendants), and Defendants/Cross-Defendants Green Buddah, LLC, Raheel Lakhany, and Shafaq Aslam Sattar (the Green Buddah Defendants) filed oppositions. On February 3, 2025, ST & Company, LLC and Raheel Lakhany filed a joinder to the Green Buddah Defendants’ opposition. Nicolas Estrada, a plaintiff in the lead case, filed an opposition.[1]

Replies were due on or before February 7, 2025. As of February 11, 2025, the court has not received any reply.

“(a) Upon timely application, any person, who has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both, may intervene in the action or proceeding....

“(b) If any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene ... the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene.” (Emphasis added.)

Intervenors contend leave is warranted because they are also injured firefighters, their claims stem from the same nexus at issue in the lead case and the instant case, and their intervention motion is timely.

The DCM Defendants argue leave is not warranted because it would introduce new issues (namely, the individual claims), the Intervenors unreasonably delayed bringing their claims, and the proposed intervention will negatively impact pending settlement with the other parties (if not already impacted it).

The Green Buddha Defendants raise the same arguments as the DCM Defendants. They also argue: (1) it would be fundamentally unfair to allow Intervenors to jump in now after the original firefighter plaintiffs bore the brunt of costs and manpower in litigating these cases to settlement; (2) their claims are not aligned with the City’s Complaint and are not adverse to both the City and Defendants as required per CCP § 387.

The Lee Defendants reiterate the extreme delay and prejudice arguments raised by the DCM Defendants and the Green Buddha Defendants.

“[Labor Code] [s]ection 3853 states that when an action is brought against a third party by either the employer or the employee, ‘the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff.’” (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 206 (quoting Labor Code section 3853).) “‘[T]he law is clearly established that, when the employer’s action is timely filed, the employee may intervene and press his complaint in intervention to recover damages for personal injuries, even though the employee does not appear and make such a claim until more than one year after his injury.’” (Id. at 207 (quoting Harrison v. Englebrick (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 871, 875).) An employer includes the employer’s insurer. (Lab. Code, § 3850(b).)

Labor Code § 3853 provides an “unconditional right to intervene” to an employee or an employer provided it is “at any time before trial on the facts.” (Mar v. Sakti Internat. Corp. (1992) 9 Cal.App.4th 1780, 1785 (Mar).) Mar is particularly instructive for this dispute.[2] In Mar, the Court found the application to intervene timely as a matter of law because “there still remained for trial” issues on the complaint even though Mar and defendants had settled. (Ibid.) The Court reasoned that any other result “would turn the plain language of section 3853 [providing the timeliness requirement] – ‘at any time before trial on the facts ‘ into meaningless surplusage.” (Ibid.) So too, here.[3] Trial has not only yet to occur, it is not yet set. Therefore, in the spirit of Mar, Intervenors have a right to intervene as a matter of law. The merits of the Complaint-In-Intervention are outside the scope of this motion. (See Mar, supra at p. 1785 [“Once filed that complaint will be subject to whatever defenses and procedural objections defendants may choose to assert . . . .”])

[1] The court is unaware of authority that Plaintiff Estrada may file an opposition in this action.

[2] Only the Green Buddha Defendants cite this case – but not for its proposition or impact on this matter. Indeed, the Green Buddha Defendants cite Mar in their conclusion.

[3] The other requirements are met, too. It is undisputed that Intervenors are the employees of Plaintiff City. Section 3853 provides that the employee or the employer may intervene. (Lab. Code § 3853.)