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.)
Courts have allowed intervention when
(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.)
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.)
Notice Of Hearing On Applicaiton For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention Matter on calendar for Monday, July 21, 2014, Line 8: INTERVENOR EUROPAISHCE REISEVERSICHERUNG AG'S Hearing On Applicaiton For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention. Grant, no opposition filed. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
Jul 21, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Special Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. 425.16 And For Attorneya??S Fees And Costs Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Friday, July 18, 2014, line 3. CROSS DEFENDANT BAY RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC's Special Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. 425.16 And For Attorney's Fees And Costs Continued to August 14, 2014. Moving party shall provide courtesy copy of reply.
Jul 18, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Complaint-in-Intervention appears to be at issue. Three parties have filed Case Management Conference Statements, none of which have Item 19b completed. JTD whether parties need additional time to complete 3.724 conference or, if case is at issue, whether matter may be set for MSC and 10-day jury trial at this time.
Jul 18, 2014
Real Property
other
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Complaint-in-Intervention appears to be at issue. Three parties have filed Case Management Conference Statements, none of which have Item 19b completed. JTD whether parties need additional time to complete 3.724 conference or, if case is at issue, whether matter may be set for MSC and 10-day jury trial at this time.
Jul 18, 2014
Real Property
other
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Complaint-in-Intervention appears to be at issue. Three parties have filed Case Management Conference Statements, none of which have Item 19b completed. JTD whether parties need additional time to complete 3.724 conference or, if case is at issue, whether matter may be set for MSC and 10-day jury trial at this time.
Jul 18, 2014
Real Property
other
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
JTD status of Worker's Compensation case, and effect on Complaint in Intervention. JTD appropriate dates for MSC and 10-day jury trial if case is at issue and able to be set for trial at this time.
Jul 18, 2014
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Matter was set for OSC re Dismissal of Jeff Wilson from Complaint in Intervention. Plaintiff in Intervention filed a dismissal of Mr. Wilson on 07/02/14. OSC is discharged, and no appearance is necessary. MSC and Trial remain as previously set.
Jul 16, 2014
Miles Lang
Ventura County, CA
Notice Of Special Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. 425.16 And For Attorneya??S Fees And Costs Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Monday, July 14, 2014, Line 3: CROSS DEFENDANT BAY RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC's Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under California Code Of Civil Procedure, Seciton 425.16 And For Attorney'S Fees And Costs: Continued to July 18, 2014 to be heard with the Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel. (501/LKS) LATE TENTATIVE
Jul 14, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
She cites no authority for loss of lien rights upon filing a complaint in intervention. In any event, County dismissed its complaint. �[U]pon the dismissal of the complaint in intervention the entire posture of the case reverted to that prior to filing of the complaint in intervention�.� Hone v. Climatrol Indus., Inc., 59 Cal.App.3d 513, 523-524 (1976). The lien on file pursuant to Labor Code � 3856(b) remains the method by which County enforces its right to reimbursement. Id. at 524, Manthey v.
Jul 09, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
Notice Of Special Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. 425.16 And For Attorneya??S Fees And Costs Matter on calendar for Tuesday, June 24, 2014, Line 4, CROSS DEFENDANT BAY RIDGE PROPERTIES LLC'S Special Motion To Strike Entire Complaint-In-Intervention Under Cal. Code Of Civ. Proc. 425.16 And For Attorney's Fees And Costs.
Jun 24, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
The entry of judgment was not caused by non-party's failure to file a complaint in intervention. Motion to intvenes is not timely and Plaintiff demonstrated prejudice "other than being required to prove their case." Truck Ins. Exchange v. Superior Court (Transco Syndicate No. 1) (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351. Additionally, Defendant failed to employ the Claims of Right to Possession procedure designed specifically for situations where unnanmed person claim an interest in the leased property. = (501/REQ)
Jun 20, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Application And Application For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention (Ccp 387(A)); Exhibit ON CALENDAR FOR TUESDAY, MAY 27, 2014, LINE 9, INTERVENOR EUROPAISHCE REISEVERSICHERUNG AG Notice Of Application And Application For Leave To File Complaint In Intervention (Ccp 387(A)); Off calendar. The court did not receive a proof of service or courtesy copy of the moving papers in compliance with San Francisco Local Rule 2.6B.
May 27, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
The complaint in intervention shall be filed upon submission to the clerk and the payment of fees. This matter has been assigned to Department 47 for hearing. In the event that either party requests a hearing the matter will be heard at 9:30 a.m. in Department 47. Any party requesting an oral argument must contact the clerk at (916) 874-5487 and opposing counsel or parties in pro per by 4:00 p.m. on the day before the hearing.
May 23, 2014
Personal Injury/ Tort
other
Sacramento County, CA
The proposed complaint in intervention shall be deemed served on all parties served with this motion as of the date of this hearing. Navigators shall file the proposed complaint in the form attached to the motion on or before May 21, 2014. Please note: As a result of staffing limitations, the court has experienced delays in routing time-sensitive documents, including oppositions and replies, for prompt review.
May 16, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Matter on calendar for Tuesday, May 13, 2014, Line 6, CROSS DEFENDANT HOHBACH-LEWIN, INC.'S DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. Overruled. (CCP ? 430.10(e).) The indemnity provision is not clearly barred by Civ. Code ? 2782(a).
May 13, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Matter on calendar for Thursday, May 1, 2014, Line 4: CROSS DEFENDANT HOHBACH-LEWIN, INC. DEMURRER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. Continued on the court's own motion to May 13, 2014. Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to [email protected] with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests.
May 01, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Ntc Of Mtn And Mtn For Leave To File 2nd Amended Complaint In Intervention For Declaratory Relief, And For Specific Performance Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, April 30, 2014, line 4. INTERVENOR JOHN WAI's Motion For Leave To File 2nd Amended Complaint In Intervention For Declaratory Relief, And For Specific Performance: GRANTED, subject to opposition. = (501/REQ)
Apr 30, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Tentative ruling for April 19, 2014 on County of Ventura/Risk Management's Motion for Leave to File Complaint in Intervention GRANT Request for Judicial Notice per Evidence Code §452(b). GRANT Motion to file complaint in intervention and order the moving-party, County of Ventura/Risk Management, to file and serve the proposed pleading forthwith.
Apr 29, 2014
Administrative
Writ
Ventura County, CA
�A complaint in intervention which seeks affirmative relief is in effect a cross-complaint.� (Turner v. Citizens National Bank (1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 193, 202.) Because Hamrick had been named in petitioners� petition/complaint, Hamrick could have filed a complaint in intervention as an �appropriate pleading� in the same manner and with the same requirements as a cross-complaint.
Apr 22, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO File A Complaint-In-Intervention Pursuant To Ccp Section 387; Proof Of Service On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Wednesday, April 9, 2014 in Department 503 at 9:30 a.m., Line 3. Proposed intervenors Hartford Fire Insurance Company, et al.'s (on behalf of their insured defendant Rich-Tex, Inc.) motion for leave to file a complaint-in-intervention pursuant to C.C.P. 387 is granted. No opposition filed. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45a.m.
Apr 09, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Matter on calendar for Wednesday, March 26, 2014, Line 6, DEFENDANT A&B PAINTING, INC.'S DEMURRER TO COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION. The demurrer is overruled in its entirety. St. Paul can maintain its claims because it is standing in the shoes of its insured Cahill. The complaint in intervention is not time barred because Cahill's complaint was timely filed within the 10 year period of CCP 337.15.
Mar 26, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Plaintiff asserts "[a] claim that does not exist cannot support a complaint in intervention." Plaintiff further argues that intervention would enlarge the issues in the case. Plaintiff notes that proposed intervener is also asserting claims to recover on a $15,000 loan. Finally plaintiff argues that proposed intervener's claim is not direct, but at best consequential.
Mar 26, 2014
Contract
Breach
Sacramento County, CA
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint In Intervention For Declaratory Relief, For Specific Performance, And Damages Housing Court Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday, March 25, 2014, Line 2. INTERVENOR JOHN WAI Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File First Amended Complaint In Intervention For Declaratory Relief, For Specific Performance, And Damages; GRANTED. No opposition filed. First Amended Complaint in intervention shall be filed and served forthwith.
Mar 25, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
s Motion For Leave To File Verified Complaint In Intervention For Quiet Title, Cancellation Of Instruments, And Violation Of California'S Unfair Competition Law, And For An Order Vacating Judgment Entered By This Court GRANTED. Complaint in intervention shall be filed and served forthwith. No opposition filed. Prevailing party prepare order. = (501/REQ)
Mar 18, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
Notice Of Motion And Motion For Leave To File Verified Complaint In Intervention For Quiet Title, Cancellation Of Instruments, And Violation Of California'S Unfair Competition Law, And For An Order Vacating Judgment Entered By This Court Matter on calendar on Tuesday, March 11, 2014, Line 12, INTERVENOR WELLS FARGO, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION's Motion For Leave To File Verified Complaint In Intervention For Quiet Title, Cancellation Of Instruments, And Violation Of California'S Unfair Competition Law, And For An
Mar 11, 2014
San Francisco County, CA
« first previous 1 ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 next last »
Please wait a moment while we load this page.