Judge: William A. Crowfoot, Case: 19STCV20026, Date: 2022-08-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV20026    Hearing Date: August 29, 2022    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

I.         BACKGROUND

On June 7, 2019, Darlene Harvell (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against Cesar Chavez, Grateful Hearts Storehouse, Inc., and Does 1 through 50 (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges the following causes of action: (1) Motor Vehicle Negligence; and (2) General Negligence.  Plaintiff’s Complaint arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on approximately June 9, 2017.  On said date, Plaintiff was stopped in traffic on the 405 Freeway in Long Beach, California, when a vehicle driven by Defendant Cesar Chavez rear-ended Plaintiff’s vehicle.  During the time of the subject motor vehicle collision, Defendant Cesar Chavez was operating his motor vehicle in the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Grateful Hearts Storehouse, Inc. 

On April 9, 2020, Defendant Grateful Hearts Storehouse, Inc. filed an Answer.

On February 18, 2021, Defendant Cesar Chavez filed an Answer.

On July 1, 2022, Non-Party State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Its Insured, Defendant Cesar Chavez.  The Court now considers Non-Party State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance’s Motion.

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

          Code of Civil Procedure section 387 sets forth the rules for intervention by a third-party in an existing litigation.  An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by, either, joining a plaintiff claiming what is sought in the complaint, uniting with a defendant in resisting the claims of a plaintiff, or demanding anything adverse to both a plaintiff and a defendant.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b).)  A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application.  (Id., § 387, subd. (c).)  The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or an answer in intervention, and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.  (Ibid.)

          Code of Civil Procedure section 387 provides for mandatory and permissive intervention by this Court. 

          The Court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene; or (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 deposition 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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1).)

          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.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).)

III.      DISCUSSION

          Nonparty State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“Nonparty State Farm”) moves for an Order granting leave to file an Answer-in-Intervention on behalf of Nonparty State Farm’s insured, Defendant Cesar Chavez (“Defendant Chavez”).  Although service has been properly made, no party in this action opposes Nonparty State Farm’s request to file an Answer-in-Intervention on behalf of Defendant Chavez.

          Following review of Nonparty State Farm’s Motion, the Court finds Nonparty State Farm has a demonstrable interest in the present litigation, sufficient to permit intervention pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(2).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).) 

          Insurance Code section 11580 provides, where judgment is obtained against an insured defendant, the judgment creditor may proceed against the defendant’s insurer for the purposes of satisfying judgment up to the amount of policy limits.  (Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (b)(2).)  Presently, in the instant action, Nonparty State Farm is the insurer of Defendant Chavez, and is providing a defense to Defendant Chavez under a policy of insurance and pursuant to specific policy terms.  (Fajardo Decl., ¶ 6.) Since the inception of this action, Defendant Chavez has properly cooperated with Nonparty State Farm for the purposes of defending against Plaintiff’s Complaint.  However, beginning in January of 2022, Defendant Chavez has ceased communications with Nonparty State Farm, despite numerous e-mails and letters, and, further, cannot be located, despite the hiring of a private investigator.  (Fajardo Decl., ¶ 7.)  As a result of Defendant Chavez’s unresponsiveness, Nonparty State Farm has effectively been precluded from advancing a defense on Defendant Chavez’s behalf.  (Id., ¶ 8.)  Indeed, Plaintiff’s Form Interrogatories, Special Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, and Request for Admissions remain unanswered due to Defendant Chavez’s absence.  (Ibid.)

          Defendant Chavez’s failure to adequately defend himself in this action has increased the possibility of an adverse judgment against him.  For example, Defendant Chavez’s failure to respond to discovery may result in a sanction striking Defendant’s Answer and a subsequent default judgment against him.  In turn, an adverse judgment against Defendant Chavez would render Nonparty State Farm subject to direct liability under Insurance Code section 11580.  (Ins. Code, § 11580, subd. (b)(2).)  A defendant-insured’s failure to properly defend an action, thereby subjecting the insurer to direct liability under Insurance Code section 11580, has been repeatedly held to constitute a sufficient interest to permit intervention under Code of Civil Procedure section 387.  (Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386-387 [“An insurer’s right to intervene in an action against the insured, for personal injury or property damage, arises as a result of Insurance Code section 11580. . . . [W]here the insurer may be subject to a direct action under Insurance Code section 11580 by a judgment creditor who has or will obtain a default judgment in a third party action against the insured, intervention is appropriate.”]; Western Heritage Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205 [“This exposure to such direct liability [under Insurance Code section 11580] has been repeatedly held to create a basis for insurer intervention in a third party action against the insured.”]; Royal Indemnity Co. v. United Enterprises, Inc. (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 194, 206 [“Intervention may . . . be allowed in the insurance context, where third party claimants are involved, when the insurer is allowed to take over in litigation if its insured is not defending an action, to avoid harm to the insurer.”].)  

          Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Nonparty State Farm has a sufficient interest in the present litigation and in the success of Defendant Chavez, interest in the matter in litigation, . . . [and] in the success of either of the parties, in order to permit intervention pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (d)(2).  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(2).)

IV.      CONCLUSION

            Nonparty State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance’s Motion for Leave to Intervene on Behalf of Its Insured Defendant Cesar Chavez is GRANTED.

          Nonparty is oredered to file the Answer-in-Intervention, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Milton V. Fajardo, within twenty (20) days of this Court’s Order.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (e)(1).)

          Nonparty is further ordered serve a copy of this Court’s Order granting leave to intervene, as well as the Answer-in-Intervention, on all parties in this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (e)(2).)

Moving party to give notice. 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.