Case Number: BC540610    Hearing Date: September 16, 2014    Dept: 93

Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles
Department 93

MANUK DANIELYAN,

Plaintiff(s),
v.

MONTEBELLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.,

Defendant(s).
Case No.: BC540610

Hearing Date: September 16, 2014

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY’S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company’s Application for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.

Background

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) has filed an application for leave to intervene on the basis that it paid a claim to or on behalf of its insured, Plaintiff Manuk Danielyan, for property damage as a result of the subject motor vehicle accident, and therefore, has an interest in this action pursuant to CCP Section 387(a). While State Farm has not submitted evidence that it has paid a claim to Plaintiff, there is no Opposition, and this fact is alleged in the Complaint in Intervention that it “determined it was covered and paid the claim.” (Complaint ¶7, at 3.)

Discussion

CCP Section 387(a) sets forth the procedures to exercise the right of intervention. The applicant must submit a complaint setting forth the grounds on which the intervention rests. If the court allows intervention, its order may be made ex parte, or the court may grant a hearing to determine whether the petitioner is entitled to intervene and whether there has been unreasonable delay in making the application. (Kimball v. Richardson-Kimball Co. (1896) 111 Cal. 386; Marc Bellaire, Inc. v. Fleischman (1960) 185 Cal. App. 2d 591.)

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. Robinson (1959) 174 Cal.App.2d 511, 515; In re Yokohama Special Bank (1948) 86 Cal.App.2d 545.) The burden rests on the one seeking to intervene to show that this is a proper case for intervention. (Muller, 174 Cal.App.2d 515.)

In this case, State Farm asserts an interest in the litigation because it has paid a claim on Plaintiff’s insurance policy with respect to the accident that is the subject of this lawsuit, and properly attaches a copy of the proposed Complaint in Intervention to its Motion. The Court finds that the Application to Intervene was timely filed given that the Complaint was filed on March 26, 2014, Defendant Montebello Unified School filed its Answer on May 16, 2014, and Defendant Raul Villareal filed an Answer on August 1, 2014.

Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

DATED: September 16, 2014
_________________________
Hon. Gail Ruderman Feuer
Judge of the Superior Court