On 07/30/2019 MIGUEL A AGUILAR filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against HELEN HAMILTON. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.
Pending - Other Pending
Los Angeles County Superior Courts
Spring Street Courthouse
Los Angeles, California
JAMES E. BLANCARTE
AGUILAR MIGUEL A.
LOYA INSURANCE COMPANY
IBISI ERIC O.
6/8/2020: Notice of Posting of Jury Fees - Notice of Posting of Jury Fees
6/8/2020: Answer - Answer
3/30/2020: Motion for Order (name extension) - Motion for Order (Proposed) Order on Motion for Leave to Intervene
3/30/2020: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion
3/4/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO PROSPECTIVE INTERVENOR LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
2/6/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
2/6/2020: Declaration (name extension) - Declaration DECLARATION OF MIGUEL A. AGUILAR
2/6/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal
2/6/2020: Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death) - Statement of Damages (Personal Injury or Wrongful Death)
2/18/2020: Notice of Motion - Notice of Motion
1/6/2020: Motion for Leave to Intervene - Motion for Leave to Intervene
1/15/2020: Opposition (name extension) - Opposition TO PROSPECTIVE INTERVENOR LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT
9/19/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment
8/13/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service
7/30/2019: Complaint - Complaint
7/30/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case
7/30/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order
7/30/2019: Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court) - Order on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court)
Hearing08/02/2022 at 10:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of ServiceRead MoreRead Less
Hearing01/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury TrialRead MoreRead Less
DocketPursuant to the request of moving party, Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 06/29/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Taken Off Calendar by Party on 06/23/2020Read MoreRead Less
DocketAnswer; Filed by: Helen Hamilton (Defendant); As to: Miguel A. Aguilar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Posting of Jury Fees; Filed by: Helen Hamilton (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Hearing on Motion for Leave to Intervene scheduled for 04/27/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 06/29/2020 08:30 AMRead MoreRead Less
DocketUpdated -- Notice of Motion: As To Parties: removedRead MoreRead Less
DocketMotion for Order (Proposed) Order on Motion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by: Loya Insurance Company (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Motion; Filed by: Loya Insurance Company (Non-Party)Read MoreRead Less
DocketComplaint; Filed by: Miguel A. Aguilar (Plaintiff); As to: Helen Hamilton (Defendant)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 08/02/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
DocketRequest to Waive Court Fees; Filed by: Miguel A. Aguilar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketOrder on Court Fee Waiver (Superior Court); Signed and Filed by: Clerk; As to: Miguel A. Aguilar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Miguel A. Aguilar (Plaintiff)Read MoreRead Less
DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: ClerkRead MoreRead Less
DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk CourthouseRead MoreRead Less
DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 01/26/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94Read MoreRead Less
Case Number: 19STLC06954 Hearing Date: March 11, 2020 Dept: 25
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE
(CCP § 387)
Non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.
OPPOSITION: Filed on March 4, 2020
REPLY: None filed as of March 9, 2020
On July 30, 2019, Plaintiff Miguel Aguilar (“Plaintiff”) filed an action for motor vehicle negligence against Defendant Helen Hamilton (“Defendant”). On September 19, 2019, default was entered against Defendant.
On January 6, 2020, non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company (“Loya”) filed a Motion for Leave to Intervene, which Loya took off calendar on January 16, 2020.
On February 18, 2020, Loya filed the instant Motion for Leave to Intervene (the “Motion”). On March 4, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Opposition. To date, no reply has been filed.
The right to intervene is set forth at Code of Civil Procedure section 387. Intervention is allowed when “[t]he person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede that person's ability to protect that interest, unless that person's interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d)(1)(B).) 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, supra, 174 Cal.App.2d at 515.)
Service of the Moving Papers
Plaintiff argues that it was given insufficient notice of this motion, as it was filed and served only 15 court days before the hearing. (Oppo., p. 2.) However, the Court finds that the Motion was timely filed 16 court days before the March 11, 2020 hearing.
Plaintiff also argues that because the Motion was served by mail, he was deprived of the additional 5 days added to the notice period pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), and denied due process to formulate a coherent reply to this Motion. (Oppo., p. 2.) However, “[i]t is well-settled that the appearance of a party at the hearing of a motion and his or her opposition to the motion on its merits is a waiver of any defects or irregularities in the notice of motion. [Citations.]” (Alliance Bank v. Murray (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1, 7.)
Here, Plaintiff opposes the Motion on the basis of short notice and raises arguments regarding the merits of Loya’s ability to intervene. Thus, Plaintiff has waived any challenges as to deficiencies in notice.
Loya argues that it is Defendant’s insurer and presents evidence that it has been unable to locate Defendant despite efforts to do so between September 24, 2019 and December 13, 2019. (Mot., p. 3; Gillard Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 8.)
Loya also demonstrates that unless allowed to intervene in this action, both its interests and Defendant’s interests will be prejudiced. (Id. at p. 6.) Insurance Code section 11580, subdivision (b)(2) provides that an insurance policy must contain “[a] provision that whenever judgment is secured against the insured…in an action based upon bodily injury, death, or property damage, then an action may be brought against the insurer on the policy and subject to its terms and limitations, by such judgment creditor to recover on the judgment.” Based on the foregoing, the Court funds that Loya has an interest in the action and would be required to satisfy any judgment rendered against Defendant. (See also Reliance Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2008) 84 Cal.App.4th 383, 386.) In addition, intervention will not enlarge the issues in this action, as Loya will simply assert defenses on Defendant’s behalf. (Reliance Ins. Co., supra, at 386 [citing Truck Ins. Exch. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 342, 346).)
In opposition, Plaintiff argues that Loya cannot move to file an answer or petition to intervene on Defendant’s behalf without first having Defendant set aside the default entered against her on September 19, 2019. (Oppo., p. 2.) However, insurers are permitted to intervene even when a third party has obtained a default against the insured. (Western Heritage Inc. Co. v. Superior Court (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205.) The fact default has been entered against Defendant does not preclude Loya from intervening in this action.
Thus, Loya’s Motion is GRANTED.
Conclusion & Order
For the foregoing reasons, Non-party Loya Casualty Insurance Company’s Motion for Leave to Intervene is GRANTED.
Moving party is ordered to give notice.