What is a Motion to Intervene?

Useful Rulings on Motion to Intervene

Recent Rulings on Motion to Intervene

HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM. CO. V. VALERO REFINING CO. –

Motion to Intervene TENTATIVE RULING The motion to intervene is granted. The opposition to the motion has been made by a former defendant who is not yet a party to the action. The motion is timely because filed early in the action and no trial date is set. The statute of limitations as to the moving party has not expired, he has a direct interest in the action, and there is no apparent prejudice to granting the motion. Code of Civ. Proc. § 387(b); Labor Code §§ 3852 and 3853.

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2020

HARTFORD ACCIDENT & INDEM. CO. V. VALERO REFINING CO. – CAL., ET AL.

Motion to Intervene RECOMMENDED TENTATIVE RULING The motion to intervene is granted.

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

Proc., § 387, subd. (c).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

JENNIFER KUEKES VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,

With respect to BONY’s motion to intervene, the Court concludes that BONY has an interest in the subject property. Plaintiff executed a Note of $230,000 secured by a Deed of Trust encumbering the subject property, which was recorded on April 28, 2014. (Rogers Decl. ¶ 6 & RJN Ex. 3.) According to an Assignment of Deed of Trust recorded on May 18, 2011, the Deed of Trust was assigned to proposed intervenor BONY on May 16, 2011. (Rogers Decl. ¶ 7 & RJN Ex. 4.) Intervention by BONY is therefore appropriate.

  • Hearing

    Nov 20, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

PAUL FROST VS MOGUL CAPITAL LLC ET AL

Hearing Date: November 19, 2020 Moving Parties: Proposed intervenor Travelers Property Casualty Company of America Responding Party: None Motion to Intervene The court considered the moving papers. No opposition was filed. RULING The motion is GRANTED. Travelers Property Casualty Company of America is ordered to file its complaint-in-intervention within five days.

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

SULLIVAN VS ROBERTSON'S READY MIX INC

Sedgwick is to proceed in accordance with the requirements under CCP section 387(e).

  • Hearing

    Nov 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

ISAI CHILEL, AN INDIVIDUAL VS HIROSHI KAWASHIMI, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Legal Standard Intervention is governed by CCP 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.”

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

JOSE LUCIO GARCIA HERNANDEZ ET AL. VS RENATO JAVIER ASTORGA ET AL.

The motion to intervene is granted. The case management conference scheduled for March 25, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 11B will remain. Ross 11/17/2020 ……………….. Directions for Contesting or Arguing the Tentative Ruling: Tentative rulings for Law and Motion will be posted electronically by 1:30 p.m. the day before the hearing.

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2020

LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS LOPEZ

See tentative ruling on motion to intervene.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY VS LOPEZ

The court’s rulings on the motions to set aside and motion to intervene will affect the validity of the cross complaint.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

KIMBERLY KIRCHMEYER DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

On a separate issue, a review of the court file in this case shows that Objectors have filed papers regarding a motion to intervene, a motion to seal and a motion to proceed anonymously, all referencing a hearing date of November 13, 2020. However, there is no record in the court file of any party reserving a hearing date for any motion other than the petition for order compelling compliance with investigational subpoena.

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

NAUTILUS INSURANCE COMPANY VS TRIMAC TRANSPORTATION SOUTH, INC.

Ruling The motion to intervene is granted. Next dates: Notice: Intervenor United Fabricare Supply, Inc. to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

IN THE MATTER OF: ASSET SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC

Ladderstile Companies, LLC has filed a notice of withdrawal of its motion to intervene in this action and confirmed its withdrawal of its competing offer to Pericles. (10/21/20 Notice of Withdrawal; 10/21/20 Eason Decl., ¶ 3.)

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge

    Maurice A. Leiter or Salvatore Sirna

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DIANE HIGHTREE V. AMPLIFY LTD

Following up the Court’s July 7 ruling, Jules Vanden Berge, the plaintiff in the Federal Action, filed a motion to intervene in this action. On August 25, 2020, the Court granted the motion of Vanden Berge to intervene in this action. To allow Vanden Berge to respond to the motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement, the Court continued the hearing on this motion to October 20. The Court subsequently continued the hearing to this date.

  • Hearing

    Nov 03, 2020

JORGE LUIS ORTIZ VS TJC HOME BUILDERS, LLC

Proc., § 387(d)(1).) Section 387(d)(2) allows permissive intervention “upon timely application, [to] 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(d)(2).) Whether the petitioner has an interest in the matter in litigation is a question of fact that must be determined by the court before leave to file is granted. (Muller v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

SANCHEZ V. SCHINDLER ELEVATORS & ESCALATORS, ET AL.

Motion to Intervene TENTATIVE RULING The unopposed motion to intervene is granted. Join Zoom Meeting https://solano-courts-ca- gov.zoom.us/j/85409887433?

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

DIANA M. ZAMORA ALEMAN VS GREGORY SEANDEL BAINES

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.¿ An intervention takes place when a third person is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding between other persons, either by joining the plaintiff in claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by

  • Hearing

    Oct 28, 2020

MICHAEL LE VS ALAIN MONTOYA ARBOLEDA, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the answer are not appropriately made in opposition to a motion to intervene. Any challenges to the pleading may be made within 30 days of notice of this order. (See Code Civil Procedure § 387, subd. (f).). Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 23, 2020

FERRO VS. SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., A WISCONSIN CORPORATION

Proposed Intervenor Greenwich Insurance Company’s (“Greenwich”) Motion to Intervene on Behalf of Defendant Calsol, Inc. is GRANTED. Greenwich is ordered to file and serve its Answer-in-Intervention within 5 court days. Here, Greenwich previously insured Defendant Calsol, Inc. (“Calsol”) and has agreed to defend Calsol under a reservation of rights. Petroysan Decl., at ¶¶3-4. Greenwich contends Calsol cannot defend itself because it is suspended. Petroysan Decl., at ¶3.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MCALPIN VS. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC.

The Court finds intervention is proper under CCP section 387 and Labor Code sections 3852 and 3853, because the moving party provides workers’ compensation insurance to Plaintiff’s employer, and it has paid and will continue to pay workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff. Sentry Insurance shall serve the Complaint-in-Intervention, filed on 7/23/20 (ROA 46), within 15 days. Sentry Insurance shall give notice of the ruling.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

MICHAEL LE VS ALAIN MONTOYA ARBOLEDA, ET AL.

Plaintiff’s arguments regarding the sufficiency of the answer are not appropriately made in opposition to a motion to intervene. Any challenges to the pleading may be made within 30 days of notice of this order. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 387, subd. (f).). Moving party is ordered to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Oct 22, 2020

EDWARD MORENO, JR., ET AL. VS ASHLAND OIL, INC., ET AL.

Proc., § 387(a).) Moreover, as insurance coverage issues will not be raised, intervention will not enlarge the issues. Finally, the above reasons for intervention outweigh Plaintiffs’ opposition based on the concerns of potential discovery issues. (Royal Indemnity Co., supra, 162 Cal.App.4th at 203.) The motion to intervene is GRANTED.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

CARLOS SPENCER, ET AL. VS SEAN SABERI, ET AL.

The court noted that Real Party-in-Interest Gateway intended to file a motion to intervene and advised it that such motion would be sought in the individual calendar court. According to a proof of service on file, Defendants were personally served with the Summons, Complaint, moving papers, and the order on September 27, 2020. B.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

SALVADOR ESTRADA VS CENTRAL TRANSPORT, LLC, AN INDIANA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1).) A court may allow permissive intervention 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).)

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Other Employment

NASSER SEDAGHAT VS TARZANA HEALTH AND REHABILITATION CENTER

Proc., § 387, subd. (b).) “A nonparty shall petition the court for leave to intervene by noticed motion or ex parte application. The petition shall include a copy of the proposed complaint in intervention or answer in intervention and set forth the grounds upon which intervention rests.” (Id. at § 387, subd. (c).) 2. Discussion Plaintiff S. David Sedaghat “moves this Court for leave to intervene pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 387(b).” (Motion for Leave to Intervene, p. 1:22-23.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 78     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.