People Ex Rel. State Lands Commission v. City of Long Beach

California Court of Appeal Jul 28, 1960 No. Civ. 24616Published

Before: Kincaid

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court properly denied the appellant's motion to intervene because the application was not timely made before trial and the appellant failed to demonstrate a direct or immediate interest in the subject matter of the litigation.

Issues

Did the trial court properly deny the appellant's motion to intervene?
Was the application for intervention timely under Section 387 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
Did the appellant possess a sufficient legal interest to justify intervention under state law or Public Resources Code section 6814?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“One such ground is that the application to intervene was not timely made in that it was not made at a time before trial of the action.”

“The interest referred to must be ‘in the matter in litigation and of such a direct or immediate character that the intervenor will either gain or lose by the direct legal operation and effect of the judgment.’”

“The orders appealed from are affirmed.”

KINCAID, J. pro tem.

Appellant hereinafter referred to as “Whitson” appeals from two orders denying him leave to

[273]

intervene in the within action. The first such order granted an ex parte motion to vacate and set aside a prior ex parte order allowing Whitson to intervene. The second order denied his application for leave to intervene, made on notice.

On July 26, 1957, plaintiff, the People of the State of California, filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Relief and to Quiet Title” to certain tide and submerged lands. This case involved the interpretation and legal effect of a quitclaim deed of October 15, 1932, from the city of Long Beach to the State of California. Subsequently defendant filed its answer and cross-complaint with the plaintiff’s answer thereto following. A pretrial conference was held and after several continuances the trial of the case commenced on November 24, 1959. Certain documents were received in evidence and the trial was thereupon continued to January 18, 1960. The minute order stated in part: “In the event that counsel are able to present the matter by Briefs at that time, no further hearing shall be had, and cause shall be deemed submitted.” The only additional evidence received in the trial after November 24, 1959, was a written stipulation of facts filed with the trial court.

On December 3, 1959, Whitson presented a complaint in intervention, in propria persona, and a petition for intervention. These were presented ex parte to a court commissioner who granted the leave and the complaint in intervention was thereupon filed. Thereafter on December 9, 1959, said commissioner by ex parte order struck the complaint in intervention from the files and signed a judgment of dismissal of the complaint in intervention.

On December 16, 1959, Whitson filed a notice of motion for leave to intervene or appear amicus curiae. This motion was noticed before the trial judge and, after hearing, was denied.

The sole issue on appeal is: Did the trial court properly deny to Whitson permission to intervene in the instant ease ?

Appeal may be taken from an order denying leave to intervene

(Dollenmayer

People Ex Rel. State Lands Commission v. City of Long Beach

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief