This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 07/08/2019 at 02:41:22 (UTC).

RICHARD WALLACE VS WJE TRUCKING INC ET AL

Case Summary

On 02/06/2018 RICHARD WALLACE filed a Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle lawsuit against WJE TRUCKING INC. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Stanley Mosk Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is CHRISTOPHER K. LUI. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ****3169

  • Filing Date:

    02/06/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle

  • Courthouse:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Presiding Judge

CHRISTOPHER K. LUI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner

WALLACE RICHARD

Claimant

STATE COMPSENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendants and Respondents

WJE TRUCKING INC.

BANKS THADDEUS

DOES 1 TO 10

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Petitioner Attorney

STOLL JR ROBERT J.

Defendant and Respondent Attorneys

FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY LLP

CEREZO LIZEL R.

 

Court Documents

NOTICE OF LIEN PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 3850-3865; REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON PROOF OF SERVICE LIST FOR ALL PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY

7/26/2018: NOTICE OF LIEN PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 3850-3865; REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON PROOF OF SERVICE LIST FOR ALL PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY

LIEN CLAIMANT'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

8/31/2018: LIEN CLAIMANT'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

Motion for Leave to Intervene

5/3/2019: Motion for Leave to Intervene

Declaration

5/3/2019: Declaration

Request for Judicial Notice

5/3/2019: Request for Judicial Notice

Memorandum of Points & Authorities

5/3/2019: Memorandum of Points & Authorities

Motion to Continue Trial Date

6/10/2019: Motion to Continue Trial Date

Minute Order

7/5/2019: Minute Order

CIVIL DEPOSIT

3/19/2018: CIVIL DEPOSIT

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF WJE TRUCKING INC.AND THADDEUS BANKS

3/19/2018: ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF WJE TRUCKING INC.AND THADDEUS BANKS

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

3/29/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

3/29/2018: Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

CoverSheet

2/6/2018: CoverSheet

CoverSheet

2/6/2018: CoverSheet

Summons

2/6/2018: Summons

Complaint

2/6/2018: Complaint

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/05/2019
  • at 1:30 PM in Department 4A, Christopher K. Lui, Presiding; Hearing on Motion to Continue Trial - Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/05/2019
  • Minute Order ( (Defendant Thaddeus Banks' Motion to Continue Trial)); Filed by Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2019
  • Motion to Continue Trial Date; Filed by Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Request for Judicial Notice; Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Memorandum of Points & Authorities; Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Declaration (of Ryan J Greenspan); Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/03/2019
  • Motion for Leave to Intervene; Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • LIEN CLAIMANT'S NOTICE OF CHANGE OF MAILING ADDRESS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/31/2018
  • Notice of Change of Address or Other Contact Information; Filed by STATE COMPSENSATION INSURANCE FUND (Legacy Party)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/26/2018
  • NOTICE OF LIEN PURSUANT TO LABOR CODE 3850-3865; REQUEST TO BE PLACED ON PROOF OF SERVICE LIST FOR ALL PLEADINGS AND DISCOVERY

    Read MoreRead Less
2 More Docket Entries
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Richard Wallace (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service (not Summons and Complaint); Filed by Richard Wallace (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/29/2018
  • Proof of Service of Summons and Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF WJE TRUCKING INC.AND THADDEUS BANKS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Answer; Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • Receipt; Filed by WJE Trucking, Inc. (Defendant); Thaddeus Banks (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • CIVIL DEPOSIT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Summons; Filed by null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/06/2018
  • Complaint; Filed by Richard Wallace (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: BC693169    Hearing Date: July 23, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to Intervene

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff Richard Wallace (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants WJE Trucking, Inc. and Thaddeus Banks alleging motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligence per se for an automobile collision that occurred on July 21, 2016.

On May 3, 2019, Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a motion for leave to intervene.  On August 2, 2019, the Court granted DB Insurance’s motion.

On February 11, 2020, Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund (“Proposed Intervenor”) filed the instant motion for leave to intervene pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 387.

On March 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Proposed Intervenor’s motion for leave to intervene to May 22, 2020.

On April 14, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Proposed Intervenor’s motion for leave to intervene to June 24, 2020.

On June 24, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on Proposed Intervenor’s motion for leave to intervene to July 23, 2020.

Trial is set for May 18, 2021.

PARTYS REQUEST

Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it is the workers’ compensation carrier for Plaintiff’s employer.

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 uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or by demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and the defendant, and is made by complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which the intervention rests, filed by leave of the court and served upon the parties to the action or proceeding who have not appeared in the same manner as upon the commencement of an original action, and upon the attorneys of the parties who have appeared, or upon the party if he has appeared without an attorney, in the manner provided for service of summons or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) Title 14 of Part 2.”

To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case . . . . And section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.” (Id. at p. 1200.) “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected. ‘The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment . . . .’” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882 [citations and emphasis omitted].)

DISCUSSION

Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it is Plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier and has paid workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff as a result of the subject accident.

“[Labor Code] [s]ection 3853 states that when an action is brought against a third party by either the employer or the employee, ‘the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff.’”  (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 206 (quoting Labor Code section 3853).)  “‘[T]he law is clearly established that, when the employer’s action is timely filed, the employee may intervene and press his complaint in intervention to recover damages for personal injuries, even though the employee does not appear and make such a claim until more than one year after his injury.’”  (Id. at 207 (quoting Harrison v. Englebrick (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 871, 875).)  An employer includes the employer’s insurer.  (Lab. Code, § 3850(b).)

As Proposed Intervenor is Plaintiff’s employer’s insurer, the motion is properly granted pursuant to Labor Code sections 3850, subdivision (b) and 3853.

While the Court would generally order Proposed Intervenor to file the complaint-in intervention within ten days, the Court notes Proposed Intervenor has already filed the complaint-in-intervention.  Therefore, the Court deems the complaint-in-intervention filed on February 11, 2020 as the operative complaint-in-intervention in this action.

The Court noted in its June 24, 2020 minute order continuing the hearing on this motion that there was no evidence showing Plaintiff had given notice of the continued hearing date on this motion.  Plaintiff filed notice of the Court’s June 24, 2020 minute order on June 23, 2020.  Accordingly, sufficient notice has been provided to the parties such that the Court may grant this motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion is GRANTED.

Proposed Intervenor is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.

Case Number: BC693169    Hearing Date: June 24, 2020    Dept: 28

Motion for Leave to Intervene

Having considered the moving, opposing, and reply papers regarding the motion to bifurcate and the moving papers regarding the motion for leave to intervene, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers have been filed regarding the motion for leave to intervene.

BACKGROUND

On February 6, 2018, Plaintiff Richard Wallace filed a complaint against Defendants WJE Trucking, Inc. and Thaddeus Banks alleging motor vehicle negligence, general negligence, and negligence per se for an automobile collision that occurred on July 21, 2016.

On May 3, 2019, DB Insurance Co., Ltd. filed a motion for leave to intervene.  On August 2, 2019, the Court granted DB Insurance’s motion.

On January 24, 2020, Defendant Thaddeus Banks and Intervenor DB Insurance Co., Ltd. Filed a motion to bifurcate trial on the issues of liability and damages.

On February 11, 2020, Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund (“Proposed Intervenor”) filed a motion for leave to intervene.

On March 20, 2020, the Court continued the hearing on the motion for leave to intervene to May 22, 2020.

On April 14, 2020, the Court continued the hearings on the motion for leave to intervene and motion to bifurcate to April 14, 2020.

Trial is set for August 26, 2020.

PARTIES REQUESTS

Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it is the workers’ compensation carrier for Plaintiff’s employer.

Defendant Thaddeus Banks and Intervenor DB Insurance Co., Ltd. Filed a motion to bifurcate trial on the issues of liability and damages.

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 uniting with the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or by demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and the defendant, and is made by complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which the intervention rests, filed by leave of the court and served upon the parties to the action or proceeding who have not appeared in the same manner as upon the commencement of an original action, and upon the attorneys of the parties who have appeared, or upon the party if he has appeared without an attorney, in the manner provided for service of summons or in the manner provided by Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1010) Title 14 of Part 2.”

To establish a direct and immediate interest in the litigation for purposes of permissive intervention, a non-party seeking intervention must show that he or she stands to gain or lose by direct operation of the judgment, even if no specific interest in the property or transaction at issue exists. (Simpson Redwood Co. v. State of California (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1192, 1201.) “Whether the intervener’s interest is sufficiently direct must be decided on the facts of each case . . . . And section 387 should be liberally construed in favor of intervention.” (Id. at p. 1200.) “In order that a party may be permitted to intervene it is not necessary that his interest in the action be such that he will inevitably be affected by the judgment. It is enough that there be a substantial probability that his interests will also be so affected. ‘The purposes of intervention are to protect the interests of those who may be affected by the judgment . . . .’” (Timberidge Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Santa Rosa (1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 873, 881-882 [citations and emphasis omitted].)

DISCUSSION

Motion to Bifurcate

The Court initially notes that Plaintiff did not lodge a notice of the Court’s continuance of the motion to bifurcate to June 24, 2020 pursuant to the Court’s April 14, 2020 order.  However, Defendants filed reply papers on May 19, 2020 conveying in the caption that the hearing is to take place on June 24, 2020 at 8:30 a.m.  As such, Defendants apparently had actual notice of the continued hearing date as of the time they filed their reply.

The Motion to Bifurcate the Liability and Damages Phases at trial is CONTINUED to the trial date on August 26, 2020, at 8:30 a.m. to be heard and decided by the court assigned to conduct the trial of this action.  Defendant Thaddeus Banks and Intervenor DB Insurance Co., Ltd. may include the motion to bifurcate and stipulation with the motions in limine in the parties’ joint trial binder, pursuant to the First Amended Standing Order Re: Final Status Conference, Personal Injury Courts, effective as of April 16, 2018, to present to the judge to whom this matter is assigned for trial.

Motion for Leave to Intervene

The Court notes that opposing papers had be filed and personally served on June 11, 2020, at the latest, to conform with the mandates of California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.  No opposing papers were timely filed and served.  The Court exercises its discretion in refusing to consider any late opposition pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subdivision (d).

Proposed Intervenor State Compensation Insurance Fund seeks leave to intervene in this action on grounds that it is Plaintiff’s employer’s workers’ compensation carrier and has paid workers’ compensation benefits to Plaintiff as a result of the subject accident.

“[Labor Code] [s]ection 3853 states that when an action is brought against a third party by either the employer or the employee, ‘the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff.’”  (Jordan v. Superior Court (1981) 116 Cal.App.3d 202, 206 (quoting Labor Code section 3853).)  “‘[T]he law is clearly established that, when the employer’s action is timely filed, the employee may intervene and press his complaint in intervention to recover damages for personal injuries, even though the employee does not appear and make such a claim until more than one year after his injury.’”  (Id. at 207 [quoting Harrison v. Englebrick (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 871, 875].)  An employer includes the employer’s insurer.  (Lab. Code, § 3850, subd. (b).)

As stated above, Plaintiff did not lodge a notice of the Court’s continuance of the motion for leave to intervene to June 24, 2020 pursuant to the Court’s April 14, 2020 order.  There is no evidence showing Plaintiff complied with this order.  As such, the Court finds it in the interest of justice to continue the hearing on the motion for leave to intervene for Plaintiff to give notice of the hearing on this motion.

CONCLUSION

The motion for leave to intervene is CONTINUED to July 23, 2020 at 1:30 p.m. at Spring Street Courthouse located at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, California 90012.

Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where WJE TRUCKING INC.-DOE 6 is a litigant

Latest cases where STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer STOLL ROBERT JOHN JR