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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(a); Truck Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 342, 346.) Further, a nonparty has the right to intervene in litigation between others where the party claims an interest in the property or transaction involved in such litigation, and is so situated that any judgment rendered in the party’s absence may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(b); Cal. Physicians’ Serv. v. Super. Ct. (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 91, 96.)

“The purpose of allowing intervention is to protect others potentially affected by a judgment, thus obviating delay and multiplicity of suits.” (Catello v. I.T.T. General Controls (1984) 152 Cal.App.3d 1009, 1013.)

If leave to intervene is granted by the court, the intervenor must separately file the complaint in intervention, and serve a copy of the order granting leave and the pleadings in intervention in the manner specified in the statute. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(e).) A complaint-in-intervention establishes the intervenor’s position on the claims raised in the action. (Bowles v. Super. Ct. (1955) 44 Cal.2d 574, 589.) The intervenor then becomes an independent party to the action, possessing the same rights as any other party. (Deutschmann v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. (1982) 132 Cal.App.3d 912, 916.)

Legal Standard

Courts have allowed intervention when

1. the proper procedures have been followed;
2. the intervenor has a direct and immediate interest in the litigation;
3. intervention will not enlarge the issues in the litigation; and
4. the reasons for the intervention outweigh any opposition by parties presently in the action.

(Reliance Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386; Hinton v. Beck (2009) 176 Cal.4th 1378, 1382-1383.)

“[T]he proposed intervener’s interest in the litigation must be direct rather than consequential, and it must be an interest that is capable of determination in the action... ‘A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.’ Conversely, ‘an interest is consequential and thus insufficient for intervention when the action in which intervention is sought does not directly affect it although the results of the action may indirectly benefit or harm its owner.’” (City and County of San Francisco v. State of California (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case” (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1192, 1200.)

For permissive intervention, the party need not have any pecuniary interest in the dispute, nor a specific interest in the “property or transaction” involved in the litigation (as is required for intervention by right). (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of Calif. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) Nor need it be shown that such interest will inevitably be affected by the outcome of the litigation, a substantial probability is sufficient. (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881.) 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. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal. App. 3d 1192, 1201.)

“[C]ourts have recognized California Code of Civil Procedure section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.” (Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 30 Cal.App.4th at p. 1423.) Where the would-be intervenor “meets the qualifications for mandatory intervention... the fact that such intervention would add to the complexity of the action, create delay or adversely affect the original parties is of no moment.” (California Physicians’ Service v. Super. Ct. (Gilmore) (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d 91, 96.)

Procedure

A motion to intervene “shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(c).) If leave to intervene is granted the intervenor shall separately file the complaint in intervention, answer in intervention, or both. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(e).) “‘A complaint in intervention, like any other complaint, is subject to an affirmative defense based on an applicable statute of limitations and, if it asserts a new cause of action, the application for leave to intervene must be filed within the pertinent limitations period.’” (Basin Construction Corp. v. Department of Water & Power (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 819, 825.)

Procedurally, the right to intervene “is one which must be availed of in a timely manner.” (Traweek v. Draper (1956) 143 Cal.App.2d 119, 122.) The right to intervene “should be asserted within a reasonable time and... the intervenor must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.” (In re Yokohama Specie Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545, 556.) However, the statute does not define what constitutes a “timely application.” (Allen v. California Water & Tel. Co. (1947) 31 Cal.2d 104, 108.) California Courts have held that “timeliness is hardly a reason to bar intervention when a direct interest is demonstrated and the real parties in interest have not shown any prejudice other than being required to prove their case.” (Truck Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351.)

The statute of limitations is tolled by the filing of the underlying action, so the intervenor has a right to file a complaint in intervention even after the statute would otherwise have expired by the time the complaint in intervention is filed. (Home Ins. Co. v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 522, 525-526.)