Intervention is the procedure whereby someone not named as a party to an action (or ordered joined as a party) may nevertheless become a party. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387.) “The purpose of allowing intervention is to promote fairness by involving all parties potentially affected by a judgment.” (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1199.)
“An intervention takes place when a nonparty, deemed an intervenor, becomes a party to an action or proceeding between other persons by doing any of the following:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(b).)
There are two types of interventions (mandatory and permissive), both of which require that the party seeking to intervene have an interest in the action. (Hodge v. Kirkpatrick Development, Inc. (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 540, 546, 554.)
With regards to mandatory intervention, “[t]he court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(1).)
In contrast, permissive intervention allows that “[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.” (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(d)(2); Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Gerlach (1976) 56 Cal.App.3d 299, 303-305; U.S. Ecology, Inc. v. State of Calif. (2001) 92 Cal.Ap.4th 113, 140; City & County of San Francisco v. State of Calif. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037.)
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. The party need not have any pecuniary interest in the dispute. Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of Calif. (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.
“[T]he trial court has discretion to permit a nonparty to intervene where the following factors are met:
(Reliance Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct., 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386 (2000).)
“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.” (City and County of San Francisco v. State (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1030, 1037.)
“In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected.” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-82. Even where intervention is permissive, the statute is to be liberally construed in favor of intervention. See Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo, 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1505 (2006).)
However, a trial court has discretion to deny intervention even when a “direct interest” is shown, if the interests of the original litigants outweigh the intervenor’s concerns. (Marriage of Kerr (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 130, 134; City of Malibu v. California Coastal Comm’n. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 897, 906.) But a proposed intervenor’s interest is insufficient “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.” (Lindelli v. Town of San Anselmo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1499, 1505.)
Whether intervention is mandatory and permissive, the party seeking to intervene must make “timely” application to the court. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 387(a).) “Aside from the statutory limitation... it is the general rule that a right to intervene should be asserted within a reasonable time and that the intervener must not be guilty of an unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit.” (Allen v. Cal. Water & Tel. Co. (1947) 31 Cal.2d 104, 108.)
However, “[t]imeliness 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.” (See Truck Ins. Exch. v. Super. Ct. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 351.) “[T]he timeliness of a motion to intervene under section 387 should be determined based on the date the proposed interveners knew or should have known their interests in the litigation were not being adequately represented.” (Ziani Homeowners Assn. v. Brookfield Ziani LLC (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 274, 282.)
Dec 03, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Dec 02, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Nov 19, 2020
Placer County, CA
Nov 12, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Nov 06, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Nov 02, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Oct 28, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Oct 09, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Oct 06, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Oct 06, 2020
Yolo County, CA
Oct 02, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Sep 29, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Sep 29, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Sep 29, 2020
Sacramento County, CA
Sep 02, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Sep 02, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 27, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 25, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 21, 2020
Placer County, CA
Aug 18, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Aug 13, 2020
Culver Kapetan, Kristi
Fresno County, CA
Aug 13, 2020
San Francisco County, CA
Aug 11, 2020
Santa Clara County, CA
Aug 05, 2020
Stanislaus County, CA
Please wait a moment while we load this page.