section 387(b) right to intervene exists in California

2023Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by respondent Ryan Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 1 for a stay.1 The trial court denied the motions, relying principally on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955 , review granted Jan. 5, 2022, S271721 (Turrieta) and distinguishing our decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (Moniz).

2023Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by respondent Ryan Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 1 for a stay. 1 The trial court denied the motions, relying principally on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955 , review granted Jan. 5, 2022, S271721 (Turrieta) and distinguishing our decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (Moniz).

2023What is different now is that, under the bifurcated scheme taken from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 24, nonparties must be permitted to intervene under section 387, subdivision 8 (d)(1)(B) if they: (1) file a timely application, (2) have “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,” (3) are “so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede [their] ability to protect that interest,” and (4) show that their interest is not “adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (United States v. Alisal Water Corp. (9

2023What is different now is that, under the bifurcated scheme taken from Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 24, nonparties must be permitted to intervene under section 387, subdivision 8 (d)(1)(B) if they: (1) file a timely application, (2) have “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action,” (3) are “so situated that the disposition of the action may impair or impede [their] ability to protect that interest,” and (4) show that their interest is not “adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.” (United States v. Alisal Water Corp. (9

2023Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by respondent Ryan Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 1 for a stay.1 The trial court denied the motions, relying principally on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955 , review granted Jan. 5, 2022, S271721 (Turrieta) and distinguishing our decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (Moniz).

2023Upon learning of settlement negotiations in a subsequent, overlapping PAGA action brought by respondent Ryan Accurso against In-N-Out in Sonoma County, Piplack and Taylor filed a proposed complaint in intervention in the Sonoma County action, and moved to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387 and 1 for a stay. 1 The trial court denied the motions, relying principally on Turrieta v. Lyft, Inc. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 955 , review granted Jan. 5, 2022, S271721 (Turrieta) and distinguishing our decision in Moniz v. Adecco USA, Inc. (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 56 (Moniz).

2024Liu, J., dissenting “does not limit the right to intervene to any particular kind or class of actions or proceedings” and that a plaintiff who is “the real party in interest” was therefore “clearly interested in the matter in litigation” and thus could intervene].) In PAGA suits, like other qui tam actions, “[t]he government entity on whose behalf the plaintiff files suit is always the real party in interest.” (Iskanian v. CLS Transportation Los Angeles, LLC (2014) 59 Cal.4th 348, 382 (Iskanian), abrogated in part on other grounds by Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana (2022) 596 U.S. 639 .)

2024Liu, J., dissenting accord People v. Superior Court (Good) (1976) 17 Cal.3d 732, 736 .) As we have explained, courts have discretion to permit a real party in interest to intervene under section 387 when the state is already represented by a law enforcement agency, even when it may result in delayed proceedings, on the basis that “those protected by the legislation should hardly be excluded from the very action brought to vindicate their interests unless circumstances compel exclusion.” (Good, at p. 737.) Today’s decision, which requires the same representative PAGA claims to be prosecuted in

2024(Taylor v. Western States Land & Mortgage Co. (1944) 63 Cal.App.2d 401, 403 .) 15 Tribe’s ability to protect its interests.” (Ibid.) In Lungren, the appellate court acknowledged that the project—a casino on non-tribal land in Palm Springs—would “either proceed or not proceed depending on the outcome of the suit.” (Ibid.) Campo asserts that the same is true here, but in our view, the ability of the Tribe to go forward with the Campo Wind Project is not so closely tied to the present litigation.

2024Liu, J., dissenting accord People v. Superior Court (Good) (1976) 17 Cal.3d 732, 736 .) As we have explained, courts have discretion to permit a real party in interest to intervene under section 387 when the state is already represented by a law enforcement agency, even when it may result in delayed proceedings, on the basis that “those protected by the legislation should hardly be excluded from the very action brought to vindicate their interests unless circumstances compel exclusion.” (Good, at p. 737.) Today’s decision, which requires the same representative PAGA claims to be prosecuted in

2022(Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc., supra, 29 Cal.App.5th at p. 732 .) Jeffrey fails to meet that burden. 5 We reject plaintiffs’ and Donna’s contention that we lack jurisdiction to consider Jeffrey’s appeal because his motion was not a proper motion to intervene under section 387. 7 Jeffrey’s interest in this action as trustee is to protect Donna’s interest in the Partnership Entities as a trust beneficiary.

2022(See Edwards v. Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. (2018) 29 Cal.App.5th 725, 732 .) We need not decide which standard is correct because both parties contend the abuse of discretion standard applies and because we find no error in the trial court’s ruling under either standard. 6 “(A) A provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene. “(B) The 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 th

2021Pini argues that “Trinity County referred to itself as representing the elections officer, but no motion or pleading was filed to change that status to ‘real party in interest.’ ” “ ‘ “Real party in interest” has been generally defined as “any person or entity whose interest will be directly affected by the proceeding . . . .” ’ ” (Connerly v. State 32 Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1178 , quoting Sonoma County Nuclear Free Zone ’86 v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 167, 173 .) In an election contest, both the governmental entity and its officials conducting the election, as well

2021Pini argues that “Trinity County referred to itself as representing the elections officer, but no motion or pleading was filed to change that status to ‘real party in interest.’ ” “ ‘ “Real party in interest” has been generally defined as “any person or entity whose interest will be directly affected by the proceeding . . . .” ’ ” (Connerly v. State 32 Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1169, 1178 , quoting Sonoma County Nuclear Free Zone ’86 v. Superior Court (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 167, 173 .) In an election contest, both the governmental entity and its officials conducting the election, as well

2005(Deutschmann, supra, 132 Cal.App.3d at p. 915 .) The court stated that to intervene under Code of Civil Procedure section 387, the proposed intervener must have a direct interest in the success of one of the parties to the litigation or an interest against both of them.

1979Although, arguably, there is some analogy to be drawn here to Voyce , 9 and although it would appear that appellant should be permitted to *500 intervene under the reasoning of Redevelopment Agency v. Hayes, supra, 122 Cal.App.2d 777, for reasons we shall state below, we hold that the appellant is barred from coming in under Code of Civil Procedure section 387.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1963(Dennis v. Kolm, 131 Cal. 91 [ 63 P. 141 ]; Berghauser v. Golden State Orchards, 208 Cal. 550 [ 282 P. 950 ]; Carter v. Garetson, 56 Cal.App. 238 [ 204 P. 1090 ].) Thus, the complaint in intervention was properly filed.

1941While the general rule is that in an action where the right to the possession of personal property is the sole issue, one not claiming the right to possess said property has no right to intervene therein, this rule has exceptions, one of which may be illustrated by the case of Bogue v. Roeth, 98 Cal. App. 257 [ 276 Pac. 1071 ].

1941While the general rule is that in an action where the right to the possession of personal property is the sole issue, one not claiming the right to possess said property has no right to intervene therein, this rule has exceptions, one of which may be illustrated by the case of Bogue v. Roeth, 98 Cal. App. 257 [ 276 Pac. 1071 ].

1939It is true as the late Mr. Justice Olney said in the leading ease of Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 , at page 183 [ 183 Pac. 945 ], that: “It is undoubted that when the owner of a subdivided tract conveys the various parcels in the tract by deeds containing appropriate language imposing restrictions on each parcel as part of a general plan of restrictions common to all the parcels and designed for their mutual benefit, mutual equitable servitudes are thereby created in favor of each parcel as against all the others.

1939It is true as the late Mr. Justice Olney said in the leading ease of Werner v. Graham, 181 Cal. 174 , at page 183 [ 183 Pac. 945 ], that: “It is undoubted that when the owner of a subdivided tract conveys the various parcels in the tract by deeds containing appropriate language imposing restrictions on each parcel as part of a general plan of restrictions common to all the parcels and designed for their mutual benefit, mutual equitable servitudes are thereby created in favor of each parcel as against all the others.

1938Reverting again to the case of People v. Brunwin, supra, and as a further answer to the respondents’ contention that that case does not support the rule that taking oil from underneath the surface location of another owner is not wrongful, we quote from the Brunwin case the following language, which shows the conclusion of the court after citing the case of Western Oil Co. v. Venago Oil Corp., 218 Cal. 733 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 971 , 88 A. L.

1938Reverting again to the case of People v. Brunwin, supra, and as a further answer to the respondents’ contention that that case does not support the rule that taking oil from underneath the surface location of another owner is not wrongful, we quote from the Brunwin case the following language, which shows the conclusion of the court after citing the case of Western Oil Co. v. Venago Oil Corp., 218 Cal. 733 [ 24 Pac. (2d) 971 , 88 A. L.

1931(McNeil v. Morgan, 157 Cal. 373 [ 108 Pac. 69 ] ; Wright v. Jordan, 192 Cal. 704 [ 221 Pac. 915 ]; La Mesa etc. Irr.

1931(McNeil v. Morgan, 157 Cal. 373 [ 108 Pac. 69 ] ; Wright v. Jordan, 192 Cal. 704 [ 221 Pac. 915 ]; La Mesa etc. Irr.