Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV00259, Date: 2022-11-21 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV00259    Hearing Date: November 21, 2022    Dept: W

4467 WOODLEY PARTNERS, LLC vs ALLIED INSULATION, INC., et al.

 

intervenor SETH LICHTENSTEIN’S, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SAPPHIRE TRUST, MOTION TO INTERVENE

 

Date of Hearing:        November 21, 2022                          Trial Date:       None set.   

Department:              W                                                        Case No.:        22VECV00259

 

Moving Party:            Seth Lichtenstein, as Trustee of the Sapphire Trust

Responding Party:     No opposition

 

BACKGROUND

 

On February 22, 2022, Plaintiff 4467 Woodley Partners, LLC filed a complaint against Allied Insulation, Inc., All-Tech, Inc., Boc Construction, Inc., B.Y. Marble, Inc., Byer Geotechnical Inc., Clark Structural Inspections, Inc., Jaime Diaz D/B/A Greener Days Landscaping, Forma Engineering, Inc., Robert D. Kilgour D/B/A Kilgour Plumbing, Premier Pool Plastering, Rhino Steel, Inc., Speed Of Light, Inc., Tassio Temperature Control, Inc.,  United Excavation Group Inc., Universal Engineering, Inc., and Jeff Warling D/B/A Warling and Associates asserting causes of action for (1) Declaratory Relief; (2) Equitable Indemnity; and (3) Comparative Contribution and Indemnity.

 

Plaintiff alleges it was the owner of the property located at 4467 Woodley Avenue, Encino, California 91436 (the “Property”) in the county of Los Angeles. Plaintiff acted as developer and general contractor for the development of a luxury residential home on the Property and hired the Defendants as subcontractors to provide services on the property. Plaintiff further alleges it sold the property to The Sapphire Trust. On October 19, 2021, Sapphire filed a demand in arbitration against Woodley alleging violations of Civil Code §895 et seq., strict liability, negligence, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, breach of contract and declaratory relief. Plaintiff contends this demand constitutes a proceeding for which Woodley must be indemnified and now seeks indemnification from Defendants.

 

[Tentative] Ruling

 

Intervenor Seth Lichtenstein’s, as Trustee of The Sapphire Trust, Motion to Intervene is GRANTED.

 

discussion

 

Intervenor Seth Lichtenstein, an individual, as Trustee of The Sapphire Trust (“Sapphire Trust”) moves the court for leave to intervene as a Plaintiff in this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Sapphire Trust seeks to intervene because it is the title holder to the improved real property at issue in the instant litigation and is so situated that any judgment rendered in its absence would unquestionably impair or impede Sapphire Trust’s ability to protect its interest in the property. Alternatively, Sapphire Trust seeks to intervene as Sapphire Trust has a clear “direct and immediate” interest in the litigation as the title holder to the improved real property at issue in the instant litigation.

 

Code of Civil Procedure section 387 sets forth the rules for intervention by a third party in existing litigation. Section 387(a) states in relevant part: “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.” Section 387(b) provides that “if the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene.”

 

In the case of intervention as a right, “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if… [either] [a] provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene[,] [or] [t]he 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 that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.”  (CCP §387(d)(1)(A)-(B).) 

 

In the case of permissive intervention, “[t]he 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.”  (CCP §387(d)(2).)  

 

First, the court must determine whether the application to intervene is timely. (CCP §387.) Plaintiff first filed their complaint on February 22, 2022. Seven months later, Sapphire Trust filed this instant motion. Sapphire Trust had initially made an arbitration demand against Plaintiff on October 19, 2021, which resulted in the instant action. (Slade Decl. ¶2.) Since the filing of the complaint, no formal discovery, depositions, or motion practice has taken place. (Slade Decl. ¶9.) The court finds there has been no prejudice or inconvenience to the original parties or the court in filing the motion.

 

Next, the court finds Sapphire Trust has established that it has a valid interest in the property by a grant deed and became aware of shortfalls in the construction of the Property improvements shortly after purchasing the property from Plaintiff. As a result, any judgment rendered in the nonparty's absence “may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest.” (CCP §387(d)(1)(B).) Moreover, Sapphire Trust has established a direct and immediate interest in the property and present lawsuit. As noted by Sapphire Trust, Plaintiff filed this present action against certain design professionals and trade contractors who performed or were otherwise contributorily responsible for the defective work on the Property to recover the damages, as alleged by Sapphire Trust in their Demand. As such, there is a direct and immediate interest that will not enlarge the issues in this case. (CCP §387(d)(2).)

 

Accordingly, the motion for leave to intervene is GRANTED.