1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2:24-cv-02492-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED INTERVENOR DEFENDANT ZENITH 14 TOURISMO EXPRESS, INC., et al. INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 20) 16
17 18 This matter is before the court on proposed intervenor defendant Zenith Insurance 19 Company’s (“proposed intervenor Zenith”) motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 24. (Doc. No. 20.) For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant the pending 21 motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On September 12, 2024, plaintiff filed this action seeking declaratory relief regarding the 24 scope of coverage under an insurance policy issued by plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 9, 25 2024, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 7.) In that FAC, 26 plaintiff alleges that it has issued an insurance policy to defendant Tourismo Express, Inc. 27 (“defendant Tourismo”) with policy number SD23080447 (“the Subject Policy”). (Id. at ¶ 8.) 28 Plaintiff further alleges that a single-vehicle “incident” occurred on March 22, 2024, in which 1 several individual defendants were injured and one defendant was killed. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.) 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Del Valle was driving the 2022 Volkswagen Crafter van involved 3 in this incident, that defendant Del Valle was not an employee of defendant Tourismo, and that 4 defendant Tourismo did not own the 2022 Volkswagen Crafter van. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff seeks 5 declaratory relief that it does not owe coverage for this incident under the Subject Policy. (Id. at ¶ 6 21.) 7 In its motion for leave to intervene, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that it is the 8 workers’ compensation insurer for a business known as Duncan Family Farms, Inc. (Doc. No. 9 20-2 at 2.) In support of its motion, proposed intervenor Zenith provides the declaration of its 10 counsel Michael Honeymar, Jr., who declares that the passengers injured in the March 22, 2024 11 incident have filed workers’ compensation claims covered by a policy issued by proposed 12 intervenor Zenith. (Doc. No. 20-1 at ¶¶ 1, 5–6.) Proposed intervenor Zenith represents it has 13 paid over $1,000,000 to date in total benefits and expects to pay millions of dollars more in 14 benefits in the future in connection with those claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11.) Proposed intervenor 15 Zenith has filed a negligence action in the San Diego County Superior Court against defendant 16 Tourismo to recover the amount it has paid and will pay as to workers’ compensation claims 17 stemming from this incident. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9.) Accordingly, proposed intervenor Zenith seeks to 18 intervene in this action because, should the court grant plaintiff the relief it seeks, defendant 19 Tourismo would not have insurance coverage in connection with the March 22, 2024 incident and 20 may be unable to satisfy a judgment. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 5.) 21 On August 6, 2025, proposed intervenor Zenith filed the pending motion to intervene. 22 (Doc. No. 20.) In that motion, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that all represented parties 23 to this action agreed to not oppose the pending motion. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 2.) To date, no 24 opposition to the pending motion has been filed. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 An individual or corporation or the government may “become a ‘party’ to a lawsuit by 27 intervening in the action.” U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, N.Y., 556 U.S. 928, 933 28 (2009). Intervention in federal court, either as of right or permissive, is governed by Federal Rule 1 of Civil Procedure 24. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. N.Y., 413 U.S. 345, 365 2 (1973). Rule 24 provides in relevant part as follows: 3 (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to 4 intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so 5 situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 6 parties adequately represent that interest. 7 (b) Permissive Intervention. . . . On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to 8 intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . . 9 In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 10 original parties’ rights. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. To determine whether a party may intervene as a matter of right, the Ninth 12 Circuit uses a four-part test: “(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant 13 must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction that is the 14 subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, 15 as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the 16 applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit.” Sw. 17 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) “requires (1) an independent ground for 19 jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the 20 movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 21 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 22 (9th Cir. 2009). 23 DISCUSSION 24 Here, proposed intervenor Zenith argues it is entitled to intervene both as a matter of right 25 and through permissive intervention. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 3–8.) The court does not consider 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 whether proposed intervenor Zenith can intervene as a matter of right because it concludes that it 2 may do so on the basis of permissive intervention.1 3 First, proposed intervenor Zenith has demonstrated an independent basis for jurisdiction 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000 5 as noted above and proposed intervenor Zenith is incorporated and headquartered in California 6 whereas plaintiff is headquartered and incorporated in Utah. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“The district 7 courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 8 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between . . . citizens of 9 different states.”); (see also Doc. Nos. 7 at ¶ 5 (invoking diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff is 10 headquartered and incorporated in Utah which no defendants are a citizen of and the amount in 11 controversy exceeds $75,000); 20-1 at ¶ 3 (“Zenith is both incorporated in and has its principal 12 place of business in California[.]”).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PRIME INSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2:24-cv-02492-DAD-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED INTERVENOR DEFENDANT ZENITH 14 TOURISMO EXPRESS, INC., et al. INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO INTERVENE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 20) 16
17 18 This matter is before the court on proposed intervenor defendant Zenith Insurance 19 Company’s (“proposed intervenor Zenith”) motion to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 20 Procedure 24. (Doc. No. 20.) For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant the pending 21 motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On September 12, 2024, plaintiff filed this action seeking declaratory relief regarding the 24 scope of coverage under an insurance policy issued by plaintiff. (Doc. No. 1.) On October 9, 25 2024, plaintiff filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”). (Doc. No. 7.) In that FAC, 26 plaintiff alleges that it has issued an insurance policy to defendant Tourismo Express, Inc. 27 (“defendant Tourismo”) with policy number SD23080447 (“the Subject Policy”). (Id. at ¶ 8.) 28 Plaintiff further alleges that a single-vehicle “incident” occurred on March 22, 2024, in which 1 several individual defendants were injured and one defendant was killed. (Id. at ¶¶ 11, 12.) 2 Plaintiff alleges that defendant Del Valle was driving the 2022 Volkswagen Crafter van involved 3 in this incident, that defendant Del Valle was not an employee of defendant Tourismo, and that 4 defendant Tourismo did not own the 2022 Volkswagen Crafter van. (Id. at ¶ 10.) Plaintiff seeks 5 declaratory relief that it does not owe coverage for this incident under the Subject Policy. (Id. at ¶ 6 21.) 7 In its motion for leave to intervene, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that it is the 8 workers’ compensation insurer for a business known as Duncan Family Farms, Inc. (Doc. No. 9 20-2 at 2.) In support of its motion, proposed intervenor Zenith provides the declaration of its 10 counsel Michael Honeymar, Jr., who declares that the passengers injured in the March 22, 2024 11 incident have filed workers’ compensation claims covered by a policy issued by proposed 12 intervenor Zenith. (Doc. No. 20-1 at ¶¶ 1, 5–6.) Proposed intervenor Zenith represents it has 13 paid over $1,000,000 to date in total benefits and expects to pay millions of dollars more in 14 benefits in the future in connection with those claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11.) Proposed intervenor 15 Zenith has filed a negligence action in the San Diego County Superior Court against defendant 16 Tourismo to recover the amount it has paid and will pay as to workers’ compensation claims 17 stemming from this incident. (Id. at ¶¶ 7, 9.) Accordingly, proposed intervenor Zenith seeks to 18 intervene in this action because, should the court grant plaintiff the relief it seeks, defendant 19 Tourismo would not have insurance coverage in connection with the March 22, 2024 incident and 20 may be unable to satisfy a judgment. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 5.) 21 On August 6, 2025, proposed intervenor Zenith filed the pending motion to intervene. 22 (Doc. No. 20.) In that motion, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that all represented parties 23 to this action agreed to not oppose the pending motion. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 2.) To date, no 24 opposition to the pending motion has been filed. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 An individual or corporation or the government may “become a ‘party’ to a lawsuit by 27 intervening in the action.” U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, N.Y., 556 U.S. 928, 933 28 (2009). Intervention in federal court, either as of right or permissive, is governed by Federal Rule 1 of Civil Procedure 24. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. N.Y., 413 U.S. 345, 365 2 (1973). Rule 24 provides in relevant part as follows: 3 (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to 4 intervene by a federal statute; or (2) claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so 5 situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 6 parties adequately represent that interest. 7 (b) Permissive Intervention. . . . On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to 8 intervene by a federal statute; or (B) has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact. . . . 9 In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 10 original parties’ rights. 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. To determine whether a party may intervene as a matter of right, the Ninth 12 Circuit uses a four-part test: “(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant 13 must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction that is the 14 subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, 15 as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) the 16 applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit.” Sw. 17 Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). 18 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) “requires (1) an independent ground for 19 jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the 20 movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 21 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 22 (9th Cir. 2009). 23 DISCUSSION 24 Here, proposed intervenor Zenith argues it is entitled to intervene both as a matter of right 25 and through permissive intervention. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 3–8.) The court does not consider 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 whether proposed intervenor Zenith can intervene as a matter of right because it concludes that it 2 may do so on the basis of permissive intervention.1 3 First, proposed intervenor Zenith has demonstrated an independent basis for jurisdiction 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the amount in controversy in this matter exceeds $75,000 5 as noted above and proposed intervenor Zenith is incorporated and headquartered in California 6 whereas plaintiff is headquartered and incorporated in Utah. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (“The district 7 courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds 8 the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between . . . citizens of 9 different states.”); (see also Doc. Nos. 7 at ¶ 5 (invoking diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff is 10 headquartered and incorporated in Utah which no defendants are a citizen of and the amount in 11 controversy exceeds $75,000); 20-1 at ¶ 3 (“Zenith is both incorporated in and has its principal 12 place of business in California[.]”). Second, although the pending motion was filed 11 months 13 after the filing of the original complaint, the motion was filed before discovery was completed or 14 any substantive motions were filed in this case. See Johnson v. Rush Enters., Inc., No. 1:19-cv- 15 00105-NONE-SAB, 2020 WL 8839868, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 3, 2020) (finding that a motion to 16 intervene filed 10 months after litigation began was timely because discovery was still in early 17 stages and the court had not ruled on a substantive motion) (citing League of United Latin Am. 18 Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997)). Finally, common questions of fact are 19 presented because plaintiff asserts that the insurance policy does not cover defendants’ tort claims 20 because defendant Tourismo did not employ the driver of the van involved in the accident on 21 ///// 22
23 1 The court does observe that proposed intervenor Zenith’s basis for intervention as a matter of right is that it may be unable to collect on a future state court judgment if defendant Tourismo 24 receives an adverse ruling in this action. (Doc. No. 20-2 at 5.) “This is not a legally protectable interest; it states only that there will be less money available from which Proposed Intervenors 25 can recover if the Judgment entered in favor of [the insurance company plaintiff] stands.” Burlington N. Ins. Co. v. Affordable Hous. Alternatives, No. 14-cv-00733-AB-PLA, 2014 WL 26 12607673, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2014); but see James River Ins. Co. v. Gear, No. 20-cv- 27 01052-PHX-DGC, 2020 WL 5768306, at *1–2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 28, 2020) (finding that the intervenors had a protectable interest in the outcome of a declaratory relief action regarding 28 whether an insurance policy covered the intervenors’ tort claims). 1 | March 22, 2024, which may affect proposed intervenor Zenith’s underlying negligence tort claim. 2 | (Doc. No. 7 at § 16.) 3 CONCLUSION 4 For the reasons above, 5 1. Proposed intervenor Zenith’s motion to intervene (Doc. No. 20) is GRANTED; 6 and 7 2. Proposed intervenor Zenith’s proposed answer (Doc. No. 21) is DEEMED as 8 proposed intervenor Zenith’s operative answer to the FAC. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ March 11, 2026 Dal A. 2, axel 1] DALE A. DROZD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28