1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE No. 2:25-cv-00418-DAD-CSK COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED v. INTERVENOR DEFENDANT ZENITH 14 INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO CARLOS DIAS, et al. INTERVENE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 21) 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. 21.) For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant the proposed 21 intervenor Zenith’s motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On January 31, 2025, plaintiff filed this action seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of 24 coverage under an insurance policy issued by plaintiff as well as recoupment of monies already 25 paid on uncovered claims. (Doc. No. 1.) In that complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff 26 issued an insurance policy to defendant Tourismo Express, Inc. (“defendant Tourismo”) with 27 policy number NXTPQ4QHVH-02-GL (“the Subject Policy”). (Id. at ¶ 7.) A single-vehicle 28 accident occurred on March 22, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 9.) A man named Sanchez Del Valle was driving 1 the Volkswagen charter van involved in this accident and was driving the van transporting farm 2 employees to do agricultural work at Duncan Farms in Oregon. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 13.) Plaintiff seeks 3 declaratory relief that it does not owe coverage with respect to the accident under the Subject 4 Policy. (Id. at ¶ 21.) 5 In its motion for leave to intervene, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that it is the 6 workers’ compensation insurer for a business known as Duncan Family Farms, Inc. (Doc. No. 7 21-2 at 2.) In support of its motion, proposed intervenor Zenith provides the declaration of its 8 counsel, Michael Honeymar, Jr., who declares that the passengers injured in the March 22, 2024 9 accident have filed workers’ compensation claims covered by a policy issued by proposed 10 intervenor Zenith. (Doc. No. 21-3 at ¶¶ 1, 5–6.) Proposed intervenor Zenith represents it has 11 paid over $1,000,000 to date in total benefits and expects to pay millions of dollars more in 12 benefits in the future in connection with those claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11.) Proposed intervenor 13 Zenith has filed a negligence action in the San Diego County Superior Court against defendant 14 Tourismo to recover the amount it has paid and will pay on workers’ compensation claims 15 stemming from this incident. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Accordingly, proposed intervenor Zenith seeks to 16 intervene in this action because, should the court grant plaintiff the relief it seeks, defendant 17 Tourismo would not have insurance coverage in connection with the March 22, 2024 accident and 18 may be unable to satisfy a judgment. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 5.) 19 On October 3, 2025, proposed intervenor Zenith filed the pending motion to intervene. 20 (Doc. No. 21.) In that motion, it offers that all represented parties to this action have agreed to 21 not oppose the pending motion (Doc. No. 21-2 at 2) and, to date, no oppositions have been filed. 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 An individual or corporation or the government may “become a ‘party’ to a lawsuit by 24 intervening in the action.” U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, N.Y., 556 U.S. 928, 933 25 (2009). Intervention in federal court, either as of right or permissive, is governed by Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 24. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. N.Y., 413 U.S. 345, 365 27 (1973). Rule 24 provides in relevant part as follows: 28 ///// 1 (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to 2 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 3 situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 4 parties adequately represent that interest. 5 (b) Permissive Intervention. . . . On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to 6 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. . . . 7 In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 8 original parties’ rights. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. To determine whether a party may intervene as a matter of right, the Ninth 10 Circuit uses the following four-part test: “(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) 11 the applicant must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction 12 that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the 13 action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; 14 and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the 15 lawsuit.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) “requires (1) an independent ground for 17 jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the 18 movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 19 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 20 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 DISCUSSION 22 Here, proposed intervenor Zenith argues it is entitled to intervene both as a matter of right 23 and through permissive intervention. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 3–8.) The court does not consider 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 whether proposed intervenor Zenith can intervene as a matter of right because it concludes that it 2 should be allowed to 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 case exceeds $75,000 as 5 noted above and proposed intervenor Zenith is incorporated and headquartered in California 6 whereas plaintiff is headquartered and incorporated in Texas. 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. 1 at ¶ 3 (invoking diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff is 10 headquartered and incorporated in Texas which no defendants are a citizen of and the amount in 11 controversy exceeds $75,000); 21-3 at ¶ 3 (“Zenith is both incorporated in and has its principal 12 place of business in California[.]”). Second, although the pending motion was filed 13 approximately eight months after the filing of the original complaint, it was nonetheless filed 14 before discovery was completed or any substantive motions were filed in this case. See Johnson 15 v. Rush Enters., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00105-NONE-SAB, 2020 WL 8839868, at *3 (E.D. Cal.
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 STATE NATIONAL INSURANCE No. 2:25-cv-00418-DAD-CSK COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING PROPOSED v. INTERVENOR DEFENDANT ZENITH 14 INSURANCE COMPANY’S MOTION TO CARLOS DIAS, et al. INTERVENE 15 Defendants. (Doc. No. 21) 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. 21.) For the reasons discussed below, the court will grant the proposed 21 intervenor Zenith’s motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 On January 31, 2025, plaintiff filed this action seeking declaratory relief as to the scope of 24 coverage under an insurance policy issued by plaintiff as well as recoupment of monies already 25 paid on uncovered claims. (Doc. No. 1.) In that complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. Plaintiff 26 issued an insurance policy to defendant Tourismo Express, Inc. (“defendant Tourismo”) with 27 policy number NXTPQ4QHVH-02-GL (“the Subject Policy”). (Id. at ¶ 7.) A single-vehicle 28 accident occurred on March 22, 2024. (Id. at ¶ 9.) A man named Sanchez Del Valle was driving 1 the Volkswagen charter van involved in this accident and was driving the van transporting farm 2 employees to do agricultural work at Duncan Farms in Oregon. (Id. at ¶¶ 9, 13.) Plaintiff seeks 3 declaratory relief that it does not owe coverage with respect to the accident under the Subject 4 Policy. (Id. at ¶ 21.) 5 In its motion for leave to intervene, proposed intervenor Zenith represents that it is the 6 workers’ compensation insurer for a business known as Duncan Family Farms, Inc. (Doc. No. 7 21-2 at 2.) In support of its motion, proposed intervenor Zenith provides the declaration of its 8 counsel, Michael Honeymar, Jr., who declares that the passengers injured in the March 22, 2024 9 accident have filed workers’ compensation claims covered by a policy issued by proposed 10 intervenor Zenith. (Doc. No. 21-3 at ¶¶ 1, 5–6.) Proposed intervenor Zenith represents it has 11 paid over $1,000,000 to date in total benefits and expects to pay millions of dollars more in 12 benefits in the future in connection with those claims. (Id. at ¶¶ 6, 11.) Proposed intervenor 13 Zenith has filed a negligence action in the San Diego County Superior Court against defendant 14 Tourismo to recover the amount it has paid and will pay on workers’ compensation claims 15 stemming from this incident. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Accordingly, proposed intervenor Zenith seeks to 16 intervene in this action because, should the court grant plaintiff the relief it seeks, defendant 17 Tourismo would not have insurance coverage in connection with the March 22, 2024 accident and 18 may be unable to satisfy a judgment. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 5.) 19 On October 3, 2025, proposed intervenor Zenith filed the pending motion to intervene. 20 (Doc. No. 21.) In that motion, it offers that all represented parties to this action have agreed to 21 not oppose the pending motion (Doc. No. 21-2 at 2) and, to date, no oppositions have been filed. 22 LEGAL STANDARD 23 An individual or corporation or the government may “become a ‘party’ to a lawsuit by 24 intervening in the action.” U.S. ex rel. Eisenstein v. City of New York, N.Y., 556 U.S. 928, 933 25 (2009). Intervention in federal court, either as of right or permissive, is governed by Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 24. Nat’l Ass’n for Advancement of Colored People v. N.Y., 413 U.S. 345, 365 27 (1973). Rule 24 provides in relevant part as follows: 28 ///// 1 (a) Intervention of Right. On timely motion, the court must permit anyone to intervene who: (1) is given an unconditional right to 2 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 3 situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing 4 parties adequately represent that interest. 5 (b) Permissive Intervention. . . . On timely motion, the court may permit anyone to intervene who: (A) is given a conditional right to 6 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. . . . 7 In exercising its discretion, the court must consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the 8 original parties’ rights. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. To determine whether a party may intervene as a matter of right, the Ninth 10 Circuit uses the following four-part test: “(1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) 11 the applicant must have a ‘significantly protectable’ interest relating to the property or transaction 12 that is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the 13 action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect that interest; 14 and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the 15 lawsuit.” Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). 16 Permissive intervention under Rule 24(b) “requires (1) an independent ground for 17 jurisdiction; (2) a timely motion; and (3) a common question of law and fact between the 18 movant’s claim or defense and the main action.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 19 470, 473 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Perry v. Proposition 8 Official Proponents, 587 F.3d 947, 955 20 (9th Cir. 2009). 21 DISCUSSION 22 Here, proposed intervenor Zenith argues it is entitled to intervene both as a matter of right 23 and through permissive intervention. (Doc. No. 21-2 at 3–8.) The court does not consider 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 whether proposed intervenor Zenith can intervene as a matter of right because it concludes that it 2 should be allowed to 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 case exceeds $75,000 as 5 noted above and proposed intervenor Zenith is incorporated and headquartered in California 6 whereas plaintiff is headquartered and incorporated in Texas. 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. 1 at ¶ 3 (invoking diversity jurisdiction because plaintiff is 10 headquartered and incorporated in Texas which no defendants are a citizen of and the amount in 11 controversy exceeds $75,000); 21-3 at ¶ 3 (“Zenith is both incorporated in and has its principal 12 place of business in California[.]”). Second, although the pending motion was filed 13 approximately eight months after the filing of the original complaint, it was nonetheless filed 14 before discovery was completed or any substantive motions were filed in this case. See Johnson 15 v. Rush Enters., Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00105-NONE-SAB, 2020 WL 8839868, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 16 3, 2020) (finding that a motion to intervene filed 10 months after litigation began was timely 17 because discovery was still in early stages and the court had not ruled on a substantive motion) 18 (citing League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Wilson, 131 F.3d 1297, 1302 (9th Cir. 1997)). 19 Finally, common questions of fact are presented between this action and proposed intervenor 20 Zenith’s state court negligence action. This is because plaintiff asserts that the insurance policy 21 does not cover defendants’ tort claims because defendant Tourismo was transporting employees 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. 21-2 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 | for agricultural work rather than their stated business of providing travel tour guide experiences. 2 | (Doc. No. 1 at § 13.) The determination of whether Mr. Del Valle was transporting agricultural 3 | workers may impact the determination of whether Mr. Del Valle was acting within the scope of 4 | his employment with defendant Tourismo. See Prime Ins. Co. v. Tourismo Express, Inc., No. 5 | 2:25-cv-02492-DAD-CSK, 2026 WL 699231, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 12, 2026) (finding that the 6 || question of whether the alleged driver of the van was acting as an employee of the defendant 7 | Tourismo Express was a common question of fact between the underlying state negligence action 8 || and the declaratory relief action regarding scope of insurance coverage). Accordingly, this 9 | question of fact is shared between this action and proposed intervenor Zenith’s underlying state 10 | negligence action. 11 CONCLUSION 12 For the reasons above, 13 1. Proposed intervenor Zenith’s motion to intervene (Doc. No. 21) is GRANTED; 14 and 15 2. Proposed intervenor Zenith is DIRECTED to file its answer, attached to the 16 pending motion as a proposed answer (Doc. No. 21-1), within seven (7) days of 17 the date of entry of this order. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ April 15, 2026 Da A. 2, aye 20 DALE A. DROZD 54 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22 23 24 25 26 27 28