BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1796
Page 1
Date of Hearing: March 8, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mark Stone, Chair
AB 1796
(Wilk) - As Introduced February 4, 2016
PROPOSED CONSENT (As Proposed to be Amended)
SUBJECT: CIVIL ACTIONS: INTERVENTION
KEY ISSUE: SHOULD A NON-CONTROVERSIAL LITIGATION PRACTICE,
WHICH ALLOWS A PERSON SEEKING TO INTERVENE IN AN ONGOING LAWSUIT
THE OPTION TO FILE AN ANSWER-IN-INTERVENTION, RATHER THAN A
COMPLAINT-IN-INTERVENTION, BE CODIFIED?
SYNOPSIS
Currently, a person who is not party to an existing lawsuit but
wants to join that lawsuit applies for intervention - a
procedural mechanism which generally allows a third person to
either join a plaintiff or a defendant in an ongoing legal
action. After a court grants the intervention, the intervenor
pleads by filing a complaint-in-intervention. However, since
filing a complaint is normally associated with a plaintiff, the
current intervention pleading method (i.e.
complaint-in-intervention) makes it difficult for the existing
parties to determine which side the intervenor has joined.
AB 1796
Page 2
This non-controversial bill merely allows intervenors the option
of filing an alternative intervention pleading: an
answer-in-intervention. By codifying an existing practice, this
bill provides clarity to existing law and makes it easier for
parties to locate specific pleadings when searching through the
court's documents. This bill also makes technical and
clarifying amendments intended to clean-up a code section that
has not been amended since 1977. The bill is sponsored by the
Conference of California Bar Associations, and has received no
opposition.
SUMMARY: Allows a party seeking to intervene the option of
filing an answer-in-intervention, rather than a
complaint-in-intervention. Specifically, this bill:
1)Provides that a person seeking to intervene shall timely seek
leave of court by setting forth the grounds upon which the
intervention rests and by lodging a complaint, an answer, or
both.
2)Provides that the service of pleadings after the court has
granted leave to intervene includes a copy of the order
granting intervention, or a notice of the court's decision or
order.
3)Makes other technical and conforming changes.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Provides that 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
AB 1796
Page 3
intervene in the action or the proceeding. (Code of Civil
Procedure Section 387. All further references are to this
code unless otherwise stated.)
2)Provides that an intervention takes place when a third person
is permitted to become a party to an action or proceeding
between other persons, either by joining the plaintiff in
claiming what is sought by the complaint, or by uniting with
the defendant in resisting the claims of the plaintiff, or by
demanding anything adversely to both the plaintiff and the
defendant. Provides that the intervention is made by
complaint, setting forth the grounds upon which the
intervention rests, filed by leave of the court and served
upon the parties, as provided. (Section 387(a).)
3)Provides that a party served with a complaint in intervention
may within 30 days after service move, demur, or otherwise
plead to the complaint in the same manner as to an original
complaint. (Id.)
4)Requires a court, upon timely application, to permit a person
to intervene if any provision of law confers an unconditional
right to intervene or if the person seeking intervention
claims an interest relating to the property or transaction
which is the subject of the action and that person is so
situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical
matter impair or impede that person's ability to protect that
interest, unless that person's interest is adequately
represented by existing parties. (Section 387(b).)
5)Provides that a plaintiff includes a cross-complainant or a
party who files a complaint in intervention, and that a
defendant includes a cross-defendant, or a person against whom
a complaint is filed. (Section 1032.)
AB 1796
Page 4
FISCAL EFFECT: As currently in print this bill is keyed
non-fiscal.
COMMENTS: In a civil case, a lawsuit might begin when a
plaintiff files a complaint against a defendant and alleges (or
pleads) facts and causes of action. Then, the defendant files
an answer to that complaint, outlining (or pleading) defenses or
admissions to those allegations. As this lawsuit proceeds, a
third person-who is not a party to the lawsuit-may determine
that the lawsuit affects him or her, and that he or she needs to
participate in the action to protect his or her rights. To do
so, the person asks the court to join or intervene in the
lawsuit. If the court grants the request, the person must file
pleadings, and the lawsuit continues with an additional party.
Intervention is a procedural mechanism that allows a third
person to join an existing legal action. The main purpose of
intervention is to prevent delay and discourage the multiplicity
of lawsuits by creating an opportunity for those who are
directly affected in the subject matter to join an action that
has already been instituted. (Belt Casualty Co. v. Furman
(1933) 218 Cal. 359, 362.)
Generally, in order to intervene, the third person must request
permission from the court, and demonstrate why he or she should
be allowed to intervene. If permitted to intervene, the third
person may join the plaintiff, the defendant, or sometimes, take
a position that is adverse to both parties. Under current law,
an intervening person pleads by filing a
complaint-in-intervention, even if the intervening person is
joining the defendant.
According to the author, requiring an intervenor who is aligned
with the defendant to file a complaint-in-intervention - a
AB 1796
Page 5
pleading normally associated with a plaintiff, creates confusion
as to the posture of the intervenor.
This modest bill merely allows a person who seeks to intervene
in a pending action the option of pleading with an
answer-in-intervention, rather than a complaint-in-intervention.
According to the author and the sponsors of the bill, this will
help eliminate the confusion over the status of an intervenor in
a civil action by specifying that the intervening party's
pleadings be clearly designated as either a
complaint-in-intervention, or an answer-in-intervention.
An answer-in-intervention is not new; California courts have
long recognized that parties seeking to intervene may file an
answer-in-intervention. (See People v. Rath Packing Co. (1978)
85 Cal. App. 3d 308, 317; Fuller v. San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water Dist. (1966) 242 Cal. App. 2d 52, 55; California
Bank v. Stimson (1949) 89 Cal. App. 2d 552, 553; Miller v.
Pierce (1944) 66 Cal. App. 2d 126, 130.) Since an
answer-in-intervention already exists at common law, this bill
will merely codify this well-established practice.
There is, however, value in codifying this practice. This bill
provides clarity to intervening parties on the available
pleading methods, particularly unrepresented parties who may be
unfamiliar with intervention. Moreover, by establishing this
practice in law, this bill should make it easier for parties to
locate specific pleadings when searching through the court's
records. This bill also codifies a best practice where the
service of pleadings after the court has granted leave to
intervene includes a copy of the order granting intervention, or
a notice of the court's decision or order.
Although a complaint and an answer operate differently
procedurally, this bill does not seek to affect the rights of
AB 1796
Page 6
intervening parties. For example, an intervening person who
files an answer-in-intervention could still file a demurrer
under the Code of Civil Procedure. By providing an
answer-in-intervention, this bill simply provides additional
clarity to the statute. To that end, this bill, as proposed to
be amended, also makes technical and clarifying amendments
intended to clean-up a code section that has not been amended
since 1977.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Conference of California Bar Associations (sponsor)
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by:Eric Dang / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
AB 1796
Page 7