What is a Motion to Intervene?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Intervene

Recent Rulings on Motion to Intervene

CANDELARIA DE JESUS SANCHEZ, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS GAGIK KHACHATRYAN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS JOOYOUNG LEE

MOTION TO INTERVENE (CCP § 387) TENTATIVE RULING: Prospective Intervenor Loya Casualty Insurance’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 16, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Loya is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

  • Hearing

    Jun 30, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

JUAN ANTHONY TORRES VS DRAGO CHARLIE VINSKI

Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

CHIOTTI, ET AL. V. K HOVNANIAN HOMES OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., ET AL.

Proc., § 387, subd. (d).) and therefore Legacy must intervene to protect its own interests from any potential judgment 21 creditor. Ironshore states that it is the general liability insurance carrier which issued insurance 22 policies to Legacy during the time the work was allegedly performed.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

JOSEPHINE LIVINGSTON VS FRANCES JONES ET AL

Frances Jones dba McDonald’s Corporation BC654153 MOTION TO INTERVENE Motion by Jones Management-LA Tijera, Inc. (“JM”) to File an Answer-In-Intervention is GRANTED. Intervenor is ordered to file its Answer-in-Intervention forthwith. Intervention is proper where the intervenor shows an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and disposition of that action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect the interest.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Products Liability

SHANNON NADJ VS AYESHA KHAMIS MOHAMMAD

The Court is also perplexed as to Hertz’s involvement in this case as Hertz has not been named as a party or filed any sort of motion to intervene. (See Civ. Proc. Code § 1939.33 (e) (providing that the rental company’s acceptance of service of process “shall not create any duty, obligation, or agency relationship other than that provided in subdivision (a)”).)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

FINLEY VS. PORTERMATT ELECTRIC, INC.

Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725) and although Moving Party is not a party of record at this time, the Court recognizes Moving Party’s limited standing as an unnamed class member for purposes of requesting a discretionary stay of this action during the pendency of Moving Party’s appeal of the denial of his motion to intervene. (Reed v. Superior Court (2001) 92 Cal. App. 4th 448, 455; Veyna v. Orange County Nursery, Inc. (2009) 170 Cal. App. 4th 146, 157.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

RICHARD WALLACE VS WJE TRUCKING INC ET AL

LEGAL STANDARD California Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (a) provides that, “[u]pon 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.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. V. ALICIA ANN COHEN, ET AL.

Based on the foregoing, the court will grant Anthem’s motion to intervene in the action as a party defendant. Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 387, subdivision (e)(1), Anthem shall immediately file and serve its answer in intervention.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

GENERAL STREET MEDIA, LLC VS SUNSET HILLS CAR WASH, INC.

Proc. § 387(b).) Joinder is compulsory where a “A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene.” To the moving nonparty (Code Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(1)(A).) Sunset GP contends that the provision of law conferring an unconditional right to intervene is Code of Civil Procedure section 405.30. (Motion at p. 2.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

MAGED HAKEEM VS. UNIVERSAL PROTECTION SERVICE, LP

Although Moving Parties could have prepared the motion to intervene during the court closure and been more prompt in filing this motion when the court reopened, the Court finds no prejudice from the minimal delay. Notably, a motion to intervene may be timely even after judgment on an order granting final approval is entered. (See id. at p. 267.) Intervention by Right The Court finds Moving Parties are not entitled to intervene as a matter of right.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

ECO PROPERTY GROUP LLC V. SNIDER INVESTMENTS LLC, ET AL.

It asserts that it has timely and properly brought the motion to intervene, and as it detailed above, has a direct and immediate interest in the pending action derived from its ownership of the Property and being a signatory on the Lease. It contends that intervention will not enlarge the scope of the pending litigation, since both the existing cross-complaint and the proposed CCI relate to the validity of and rights under the Lease and the Operating Agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

JANE DOE VSR GARY TOTI) ET AL

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: MOTIONTO INTERVENE AND VACATE ORDER FOR WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS FROM BLOCKED ACCOUNT [INTV] PACIFIC LIFE & ANNUITY SERVICES, INC. [INTV] PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY RULING The motion of nonparties Pacific Life Insurance Company and Pacific Life & Annuity Services, Inc. to intervene and vacate the order allowing plaintiff to withdraw amounts from the settlement annuity contract is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Jun 02, 2020

IN RE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTERS OF THE CENTRAL COAST, INC. WAGE AND HOUR CASES

After the mediation but before a motion for preliminary approval was filed, the Torres plaintiffs filed a motion to intervene. In denying the motion to intervene on both compulsory and permissive grounds, the Edwards trial court noted that the Torres plaintiffs could “opt out of or object to the settlement.” (Supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 730.)

  • Hearing

    Apr 01, 2020

HOLLENCREST BAYVIEW PARTNERS L.P. VS FROST MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

Intervening Parties Colaco and MSG Investment Inc.’s Motion to Intervene to Object to the Joint Petition to Confirm Arbitrators Approval of Settlement Agreement Continued to 4-17-2020

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

HOLLENCREST BAYVIEW PARTNERS L.P. VS FROST MANAGEMENT COMPANY LLC

Intervening Parties Colaco and MSG Investment Inc.’s Motion to Intervene to Object to the Joint Petition to Confirm Arbitrators Approval of Settlement Agreement Continued to 4-17-2020

  • Hearing

    Mar 20, 2020

EULOGIO RODRIGUEZ VS NATIONAL CONCRETE WASHOUT

On 9/9/2019, the Court granted Midwest Employer Casualty Company’s (“Midwest”) motion to intervene as a plaintiff under Labor Code section 3852 and 3853 and Code of Civil Procedure section 387 based on Midwest’s allegation that it had a right to subrogation because it paid worker’s compensation benefits to Plaintiff as a result of Defendant’s alleged negligence. The trial was continued to 2/27/2020. The final status conference was set for 2/14/2020.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

MADELINE F FRANGEL VS. AARON SUMNER MCKINNEY

Proc. § 387(d)(2) given the absence of opposition and the fact that PPC has an interest in the success of Defendant. PPC has submitted a proposed pleading-in-intervention that, in substance, is an answer in intervention within the meaning of Code of Civ. Proc. § 387(c) and (f) but is erroneously entitled a complaint in intervention. The Court grants leave to file the proposed answer in intervention.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

MADELINE F FRANGEL VS. AARON SUMNER MCKINNEY

See tentative ruling on the first motion to intervene in this action scheduled for the same date and time. This motion was filed on February 14, 2020 at 2:14 p.m. (ROA 33). The court's record indicates the same moving party filed a motion on February 14, 2020 at 12:15 p.m. seeking identical relief on the same grounds. (ROA 28.) As the motions seek identical relief, the Court consolidates the hearing on the two motions and issues a single ruling on the merits.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

PAULA ZOSS OH LA LA NAIL BEAUTY LOUNGE ET AL

SROG Nos. 58-63 ask Raafat Iskander to identify: (58) all communications between him and Oh La La regarding Plaintiff; (59) all documents between him and Oh La La regarding plaintiff; (60) all documents between him and Oh La La regarding the claims asserted in this lawsuit; (61) all communications between him and the intervenor USLI regarding Plaintiff; (62) all communications between him and USLI regarding the lawsuit; and (63) all communications between him and USLI regarding the motion to intervene and the

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MIGUEL A. AGUILAR VS HELEN HAMILTON

Legal Standard The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

LARAINE BAXTER VS EDER REYES MENDEZ ET AL

In light of the lack of opposition, the motion to intervene is granted. Intervener is ordered to file a separate copy of the complaint-in-intervention within ten days. Intervener is ordered to give notice. Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at [email protected] indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2020

DONGYA HONG VS DEWAYNE EARL GREEN-SESSION

Proc., § 387, subd. (b).) Accordingly, the Court continued to the motion to March 5, 2020. Defendant’s counsel, Scott B. Spriggs, has filed another opposition and a declaration. The memorandum of points and authorities states: “Defendant’s counsel has made several attempts to get DEFENDANT to properly date the verifications which he previously signed and affixed the wrong date.

  • Hearing

    Mar 09, 2020

PEARHEAD, INC. VS. LUH

Intervention is governed by Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Subdivision (a) of section 387 states in relevant part, “[u]pon 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.” Intervention is mandatory (as of right) or permissive. Here, Makena is moving for a permissive intervention.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

SEAN DELPH VS EMPLOYEE RETENTION SERVICES LLC [E-FILE]

On November 1, 2019, the Court stayed this action pending an appeal of the Court's denial of prospective plaintiff-intervenor Ryan Denham's motion to intervene. ROA # 107. Defendants (joined by plaintiffs) seek to lift the stay and proceed to final approval. Defendants argue that it is in the interests of judicial economy to allow the matter to proceed to judgment, from which Denham can appeal.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 73     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.