Case Name: Guerra v. Chairez

Case No.: 113-CV-256857

Petitioners Joe Guerra and CJG Ventures, LLC, filed this action on November 27, 2013, to confirm a June 15, 2012 arbitration award against Respondent Raul Chairez, relating to ownership of certain residential property located at 15461 National Ave., Los Gatos (“the Property”). The award states: “Respondent is ordered to grant deed property to Joe Guerra and/or CJG Ventures, LLC or their assigns free and clear of any encumbrances.” (Exhibit D to Declaration of Joe Guerra in Opposition.)

N.A.I.M., Inc. moves for an order granting leave to file a complaint in intervention to contest Petitioners’ request to confirm the arbitration award, to quiet title to the Property, and to assert tort claims. N.A.I.M. moves pursuant to the mandatory provision of Code of Civil Procedure section 387(b). Guerra opposes on the ground that the intervention enlarges the existing issue of confirming the arbitration award.

N.A.I.M. claims that it is the true owner of the Property, having purchased the Property at a trustee’s sale on August 29, 2012, and recorded title on September 7, 2012. After the purchase, N.A.I.M. obtained an unlawful detainer judgment against Petitioners on June 27, 2013, and evicted Petitioners on July 9, 2013.

In support of its motion, N.A.I.M. requests that the court take judicial notice of three documents: (1) the Declaration of Raul Chairez, filed on March 8, 2013 in In re Joseph Guerra, U.S. Bankruptcy Court Case No. 13-51100; (2) the trustee’s deed upon sale for the subject property recorded with the Santa Clara County Recorder on September 7, 2012; and (3) the judgment in the Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 112CV233072. Guerra does not object to the request as to the second and third documents. Those documents are properly the subject of judicial notice (Evid. Code § 452(d)), and as to those documents the request is granted. However, Guerra objects to the request as to the first document: not as to the existence of the Chairez Declaration but only as to its contents. (Declaration of Joe Guerra in Opposition, at 2:10-13.) Courts may not take judicial notice of the truth of matters asserted in declarations just because the statements are in a court file. (Kilroy v. State (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 140, 145.) Furthermore, judicial notice will be taken only of information which is relevant. (Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1057, 1064.) N.A.I.M.’s memorandum of points and authorities offers no argument based on either the substance or the existence of the Chairez Declaration. The request is denied as to the Chairez Declaration.

N.A.I.M. argues that Petitioners’ claims relate to title and ownership of the property, and a disposition of the action without its participation may as a practical matter impair or impede its rights. The proposed complaint in intervention contends that the award should be vacated because it was obtained through fraud, and seeks relief in the form of denial of the petition. N.A.I.M. also alleges two causes of action: (1) a quiet title action, and (2) a tort claim against Petitioners for slander of title, seeking attorney fees and punitive damages.

Guerra argues that this motion is just to confirm an arbitration award and is not about ownership of the Property, and thus to allow intervention would enlarge the scope of the original dispute between Petitioners and Chairez. Specifically, Guerra argues that a judgment confirming the award will give him a superior title interest only over Chairez and “would do nothing to title or possession” of the Property. (Opposition Memorandum, at 4:12.)

Upon timely application, any person who has an interest in the matter in litigation may intervene in the action or proceeding. (Code of Civil Procedure section 387(a).) If the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to property which is subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede that person’s ability to protect that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by existing parties, the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene. (Section 387(b).) An application for leave to file a complaint in intervention is timely before judgment while the cause is still undecided. (Eggers v. National Radio Co. (1929) 208 Cal. 308, 312.) A person seeking intervention must ordinarily show an interest under existing pleadings and issues, and will not be allowed to come in on a claim that enlarges the issues and changes the nature of the main proceeding. (Muller v. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511.) The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment and to obviate delay and multiplicity of actions, but intervention may be denied if these objectives are outweighed by rights of original parties to conduct their lawsuit on their own terms. (San Bernardino County v. Harsh California Corp. (1959) 52 Cal.2d 341.)

The proceedings surrounding an arbitration award consist of confirming, vacating, or correcting the award. (Code of Civil Procedure section 1285.) A court shall vacate an arbitration award if the award was procured by corruption, fraud, or other undue means, or if there was corruption in any of the arbitrators. (Section 1286.2(a)(1)-(2).) In Retail Clerks Union, Local 770, AFL-CIO v. Thriftimart, Inc. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 421, 422, a party was allowed to intervene in a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award which would have affected that party’s interest in its employees.

N.A.I.M. claims an interest in the Property and argues that it may be impaired in protecting its interest in the Property if the arbitration award is confirmed. As to Guerra’s argument that a judgment confirming the award will only affect Chairez’s interest, the award itself contradicts this argument: the award is about “grant deed”, not “quitclaim”. A judgment confirming that award would practically impair N.A.I.M.’s interest in the subject property. Therefore, N.A.I.M. may intervene in the action as to denial of the petition and quiet title. However, N.A.I.M.’s cause of action for slander of title would enlarge the scope of the original proceeding, and therefore intervention as to that cause of action is not proper.

Therefore, the motion to intervene is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.