Carlos Narbais et al vs Klayton David Martin et al

Case Number

24CV03133

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Fri, 09/19/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

CMC; Motion to Intervene

Tentative Ruling

For the reasons set forth herein, Progressive Group of Insurance Companies’ motion for leave to intervene on behalf of Martin Bros Landscape Management Inc. is granted. Progressive Group of Insurance Companies shall separately file and serve its answer in intervention no later than September 26, 2025. The answer will be deemed filed on today’s date. No default shall enter against Martin Bros Landscape Management Inc. from the time of filing the motion to the time of the filing of the answer.

Background: 

This action commenced on June 4, 2024, by the filing of the complaint by plaintiffs Carlos Narbais (“Carlos”) and Silvia Narbis (“Silvia”) against defendants Klayton David Martin (“Martin”) and Martin Bros Landscape Management, Inc. (“Martin Bros”) for automobile negligence. [Note: As the plaintiffs share a common surname, the court will refer to them by their given names for clarity. No disrespect is intended.]

By way of the complaint, plaintiffs allege that at approximately 10:30 a.m. on January 13, 2024, on Cathedral Oaks Road, Goleta, Martin and Martin Bros were driving a Silverado and became distracted by a passing cyclist, causing them to drive onto the wrong side of the road and collide head-on into Carlos’ Grand Cherokee. (Compl., ¶¶ 13-19.) Carlos sustained serious injuries and has been comatose and non-communicative since the collision. (Id. at ¶¶ 21, 22.)

On July 23, 2025, Martin answered the complaint with a general denial and 13 affirmative defenses.

On September 8, 2025, Kelly Jo Martin was substituted into the action in place of Doe 1.

Progressive Group of Insurance Companies (“Progressive”) filed the present motion for leave to intervene in this action, on behalf of Martin Bros, on May 19, 2025, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 387.

Plaintiffs have not filed opposition or any other response to the motion.

Analysis:

“(1) The court shall, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if either of the following conditions is satisfied:

“(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 that interest, unless that person’s interest is adequately represented by one or more of the existing parties.

“(2) The court may, upon timely application, permit a nonparty to intervene in the action or proceeding if the person has an interest in the matter in litigation, or in the success of either of the parties, or an interest against both.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (d).)

“In addition to the statutory limitation on the time of intervention, it is the general rule that a right to intervene should be asserted within a Reasonable time and that the intervener must not be guilty of an Unreasonable delay after knowledge of the suit. [¶] The main purpose of intervention is to obviate delay and multiplicity of actions. [Citation.] It is also the general rule that an intervention will not be allowed when it would retard the principal suit, or require a reopening of the case for further evidence, or delay the trial of the action, or change the position of the original parties. [Citation.]” (Sanders v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. (1975) 53 Cal.App.3d 661, 668-669.)

According to the proof of service filed by plaintiffs, Martin Bros was served with the summons and complaint, by substituted service, on March 24, 2025, and mailed the following day. As noted above, the present motion was filed on May 19, 2025. The motion was brought within a reasonable time.

“Not every interest in the outcome of litigation gives to its possessor the right to intervene in the lawsuit. “ ‘The interest . . . must be direct and not consequential, and it must be an interest which is proper to be determined in the action in which the intervention is sought.’ ” [Citation.]” (Continental Vinyl Products Corp. v. Mead Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 543, 549.) “A person has a direct interest justifying intervention in litigation where the judgment in the action of itself adds to or detracts from his legal rights without reference to rights and duties not involved in the litigation.” (Ibid.)

By way of declaration filed in support of the motion, counsel declares:

Progressive provided commercial general liability insurance coverage to Martin Bros at the time of the incident giving rise to this action. (Abbasi Decl., ¶ 5.) Progressive is, and at all relevant times has been, an Ohio corporation duly authorized to do insurance business in California. (Ibid.)

As the liability insurer for Martin Bros, Progressive is potentially obligated to pay any settlement or judgment on Martin Bros’ behalf, up to the policy limits, and therefore has a direct and immediate interest in this action. (Abbasi Decl., ¶ 6.)

Martin Bros has been and remains suspended by the California Secretary of State for nonpayment of franchise tax. (Abbasi Decl., ¶ 7.)

Martin Bros is prohibited from defending itself due to the suspension. (see Rev. & Tax Code, § 23301.) This fact could potentially result in a judgment against it, and plaintiffs would likely attempt to enforce the judgment against Progressive as Martin Bros’ insurer.

Progressive has provided sufficient evidence showing a protectable interest in this action, has demonstrated that the disposition of this action may impair or impede Progressive’s ability to protect its interest if it is not allowed to intervene, and has demonstrated that its interests are not adequately represented by any of the existing parties.

The motion for leave to intervene will be granted. Progressive has, as Exhibit A to its motion, provided the court with a copy of its proposed answer in intervention as is required. Progressive will be ordered to separately file the answer, and no default shall be taken against Martin Bros.