Mar v. Sakti Internat. Corp.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1992
• Docket Number: No. A056187,A056187
• Citation: 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 388,9 Cal.App.4th 1780
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: Kingsley MAR, Plaintiff, v. SAKTI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Movant and Appellant.

Page 388

12 Cal.Rptr.2d 388

9 Cal.App.4th 1780

Kingsley MAR, Plaintiff, v. SAKTI INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION et al., Defendants and Respondents, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Movant and Appellant.

No. A056187.

Court of Appeal, First District, Division 4, California.

Oct. 5, 1992.

Thomas M. Carnes, Carnes and Dibble, San Francisco, for appellant and movant.

Janet L. Holmes, Ghidella & Carmody, San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

POCHE, Associate Justice.

If an employee injured in the course of his or her employment by a third party commences an action against that third party, Labor Code section 3853 grants the employee's employer an unconditional right to intervene in the action "at any time before trial on the facts." We hold that if an employer makes a pretrial motion to become a party to such a pending action, the employer has, as a matter of law, satisfied the "upon timely application" requirement in Code of Civil Procedure section 387 governing intervention in general. ¹

BACKGROUND

In November of 1989 Kingsley Mar was struck by masonry that fell from a San Francisco building damaged in the Loma Prieta earthquake of a month earlier. At the time he was injured Mar was working within the course and scope of his employment with Wells Fargo Bank. Industrial Indemnity Company, the workers' compensation carrier for Wells Fargo, paid Mar statutory workers' compensation benefits. Wells Fargo paid the difference between those benefits and Mar's full salary during his convalescence.

Just before the one-year statute of limitations expired, Mar filed a complaint for damages. Named as defendants were the owner and the manager of the building, as well as two firms engaged in repairing the earthquake damage at the time Mar was injured. That same month, November of 1990 Industrial Indemnity filed a complaint in intervention to recover the amount of the benefits it had paid to Mar.

Assigned to the "fast track," Mar's action was set for trial on September 23, 1991. A settlement conference was held ten days before that date. Wells Fargo submitted a settlement conference statement to the effect that it "has paid a total of $67,460.49 to Mr. Mar as a result of the accident over and above his statutory workers' compensation benefits. The Bank expects these to be repaid and will augment the pending Complaint in Intervention filed on the part of Industrial Indemnity, as the Bank's insurance carrier." On September 18th Mar and the defendants--aware of Wells Fargo's looming interest ²--all reached a settlement of Mar's action.

Upon learning of the settlement Wells Fargo moved promptly to protect its interests. On September 19th its attorneys formally associated themselves with counsel for Industrial Indemnity which that same day filed an amended complaint in intervention that sought recovery of the sums paid to Mar by Wells Fargo. After defendants had this amended complaint stricken (on the ground that prior leave for its filing had not been obtained), Wells Fargo moved for leave to intervene in the action. On December 16th, the reset trial date, the trial court filed an order denying Wells Fargo leave on the ground that Wells Fargo "offered no excuse for its delay in asserting the claims set forth in the proposed Complaint in Intervention."

Wells Fargo thereupon perfected this timely appeal from the order.

REVIEW

Section 387 governs intervention in general, both permissive (in subdivision (a)) and as of right (in subdivision (b)). Regardless of category, intervention is allowed only "upon timely application" to the trial court. The pertinent portions of section 387 provide:

"(a) Upon 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....

"(b) If any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene ... the court shall, upon timely application, permit that person to intervene." (Emphasis added.)

Section 3853 specifies in relevant part that "[i]f either the employee or the employer brings an action against such third person [i.e., who caused the employee to suffer injuries], he shall forthwith give to the other a copy of the complaint.... If the action is brought by either the employer or employee, the other may, at any time before trial on the facts, join as party plaintiff or shall consolidate his action, if brought independently." (Emphasis added.)

The issue presented, which appears to be one of first impression, is how the timeliness of an application to intervene such as Wells Fargo's, is to be determined.

Relying on a literal reading of section 3853, Wells Fargo claims that it had an absolute right to intervene because the scheduled trial had not yet begun. The defendants to Mar's action, appearing as respondents herein, contend that any application for intervention must satisfy the timeliness requirement of section 387. They argue that the trial court here could properly conclude that Wells Fargo's move to join the litigation was untimely.

Because subdivision (b) of section 387 and section 3853 concern a common subject--intervention as of right--each is to be construed with reference to the other. (See Kizer v. Hanna (1989) 48 Cal.3d 1, 12, 255 Cal.Rptr. 412, 767 P.2d 679.) Our duty is to harmonize the two in such a way that no part of either becomes surplusage. (Woods v. Young (1991) 53 Cal.3d 315, 323, 279 Cal.Rptr. 613, 807 P.2d 455.) Establishing a compatible interplay between these statutes is not complicated.

Subdivision (b) of section 387 speaks to situations where a "provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene" that may be exercised "upon timely application." The first of these phrases is obviously intended to operate as an incorporation by reference of the numerous statutes such as section 3853 which grant a right to become a party to pending litigation. Subdivision (b) does not define what is "timely application," nor does it furnish a standard by which the requisite timeliness is to be measured. The relevant statute granting the right to intervene in a particular situation must be consulted to determine whether it addresses the timeliness issue. If it does not, or if it merely replicates the language of section 387 (e.g., Civ.Code, § 52 [Attorney General may intervene "upon timely application" in action involving claimed violation of equal protection] ), it should be deemed to refer the issue back to the discretionary standard of section 387. The same is true if the statute conferring a right of intervention makes express reference to section 387 (e.g., Code Civ.Proc., § 491.430 [lienholder allowed to intervene "pursuant to Section 387" to attach property]; Rev. & Tax.Code, § 538 [persons affected by specified tax assessment allowed to intervene "under Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure"] ).

If, on the other hand, the statute which "confers an unconditional right to intervene" also provides a standard of timeliness, both the right and the standard are to be treated as incorporated into subdivision (b) of section 387 (e.g., Code Civ.Proc., § 751.12 [person interested in destroyed land records may intervene "At any time within three months after the first publication of the summons, or such further time not exceeding 30 days as the court for good cause may grant"]; Wat.Code, § 2780 [interested person may intervene in action to affirm determination of water rights made by State Water Resources Control Board "at least 10 days prior to the date set for hearing by the court or within such further time prior to the decree as the court may allow"] ). Also incorporated into subdivision (b) is a timeliness standard that is itself incorporated by reference by the statute conferring the right to intervene. An example of this is Government Code section 21453 which confers upon the Attorney General seeking to recover amounts paid on behalf of injured public employees the right to intervene "in the same manner and to the same extent [as] provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 3850) ... of the Labor Code."

If sections 387 and 3853 are read together in this fashion, Wells Fargo's application to intervene was clearly timely. Section 3853 provides that the unconditional right to intervene that it confers may be exercised "at any time before trial on the facts." This timeliness standard, as incorporated into subdivision (b) of section 387, constitutes the governing rule of decision. Although Mar and defendants had settled, there still remained for trial Industrial Indemnity's complaint to recover the amount of workers' compensation benefits it had paid to Mar. Wells Fargo's application was therefore timely as a matter of law. Any other result would turn the plain language of section 3853--"at any time before trial on the facts"--into meaningless surplusage. The trial court here thus had no discretion to disregard the express command of that statute and refuse Wells Fargo leave to become a formal party to the pending action.

We hold only that Wells Fargo was entitled to be granted leave to file its proposed complaint in intervention. Once filed that complaint will be subject to whatever defenses and procedural objections defendants may choose to assert, just as happened in State Compensation Ins. Fund v. Selma Trailer & Manufacturing Co. (1989) 210 Cal.App.3d 740, 258 Cal.Rptr. 545. There the Court of Appeal in affirming a dismissal for delay of prosecution (Code Civ.Proc., § 583.410) of a complaint in intervention by a workers' compensation carrier, made clear that the running of the five years of the mandatory dismissal statute was to be calculated not from the filing of the complaint in intervention, but from the date the underlying complaint was filed. The court explained: "This standard is consistent with the statutory scheme, with the observations of the Supreme Court in County of San Diego v. Sanfax Corp. ...