Case Number: BC657305 Hearing Date: March 23, 2018 Dept: 92

GAGIK HARUTYUNYAN,

Plaintiff(s),

vs.

ALCO HOLDING CO., ET AL.,

Defendant(s).

Case No.: BC657305

[TENATATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

Dept. 92

1:30 p.m.

March 23, 2018

Plaintiff, Gagik Harutyunyan filed this action against Defendants, Alco Holding Co., Alcoinvest, LLC, and New Era Investments, LLC for damages arising out of a crush injury sustained while using Defendants’ gate.

Defendant, Alco Holding Co. is a suspended corporation and therefore cannot file an answer in this case. Its insurance company, United Specialty Insurance Company, seeks leave to file a demurrer and answer-in-intervention on its behalf.

A liability insurer normally is not a party to a third party action against its insured, but may have the right to intervene in certain circumstances. Pursuant to Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212, 217, if an insured corporation has been suspended (depriving it of the power to sue or defend), the insurer must obtain leave to intervene and defend the action in its own name. Unless it does so, the insurer cannot defend the action on the corporation’s behalf without reviving the corporation from its suspended status. (Id. at 220.)

This case is substantially similar to Kaufman, wherein the Court held that intervention is the appropriate procedural remedy for the insurer to protect its interests when the insured is suspended. Plaintiff argues the motion should be denied, however, for the following reasons:

· United failed to meet its burden to show Alco will not revive itself;

· There is insufficient evidence to show Alco’s status is forfeited;

· There is insufficient evidence to show United insures Alco.

Plaintiff’s first argument is that United failed to meet its burden to show Alco will not revive itself. Plaintiff failed to cite any case holding that this showing must be made. Notably, if Alco does, at some point, revive itself, this ruling is without prejudice to make any necessary motion or take any other necessary action concerning Alco’s renewed ability to defend itself.

Plaintiff’s second argument is that there is insufficient evidence that Alco’s status is suspended. The moving papers, however, are supported by the Declaration of Counsel and an attached print-out from the Secretary of State’s website, and Plaintiff fails to show this print-out is not admissible. As United correctly notes in reply, the Court can (and has) readily confirmed the validity of the print-out, such that the information is judicially noticeable.

Plaintiff’s final argument is that United failed to present adequate evidence that it insures Alco. United’s attorney declares his office was retained to by United to defend Alco under a general liability coverage policy. The Court finds this sufficient to support intervention; notably, it would be non-sensical for United to step in and intervene on behalf of an entity it does not insure.

Plaintiff failed to show any reason United should not be permitted to intervene. Plaintiff’s evidentiary objections are overruled. The motion to intervene is granted. Intervener is ordered to file a separate copy of its proposed complaint-in-intervention and demurrer-in-intervention within five days. Intervener must schedule a hearing date for its demurrer using the online reservation management system.