82 Cal.App.5th 440
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- Decedent Jimmy Wasdin died in a 2020 helicopter crash; his surviving heirs were his wife Erica Martinez Wasdin and his minor child (mother: Ashley King).
- An Alabama probate court issued letters of administration naming Ashley King as personal representative of the estate.
- King (as personal representative) filed a California wrongful death action on behalf of the heirs against PG&E and PJ Helicopters.
- Wasdin moved to intervene as of right under Code Civ. Proc. § 387(d)(1)(B), arguing she has an interest in the wrongful-death recovery and that King inadequately represents her interests.
- The trial court denied intervention, concluding no authority permits an heir to intervene in a wrongful-death suit filed by a personal representative and that any challenge to the representative’s adequacy should be brought in the Alabama probate court.
- The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded, holding an heir is not categorically precluded from mandatory intervention and the California court must assess adequacy of representation on the motion to intervene.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wasdin) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an heir is categorically precluded from intervening as of right in a wrongful-death action filed by the personal representative | §387(d)(1)(B) permits intervention if statutory elements are met; there is no statutory bar on heirs intervening | The wrongful-death statute contemplates either heirs or the personal representative bringing the single action; allowing intervention would conflict with the one-action rule | Reversed: no blanket prohibition. An heir may intervene as of right if she satisfies §387(d)(1)(B) (timeliness, interest, potential impairment, and inadequate representation). |
| Whether complaints about the representative’s adequacy must be litigated in the probate court that appointed the representative | Adequacy must be examined by the court presiding over the wrongful-death action; post‑hoc remedies in probate are inadequate protection | Alabama probate appointment establishes representative’s fitness and probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over such challenges | Reversed: the California trial court must decide whether existing parties adequately represent the intervenor’s interests; the availability of separate probate remedies does not defeat intervention. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528 (1972) (permitting member intervention under rule 24 even where statute grants exclusive enforcement to a government actor)
- Estate of Riccomi, 185 Cal. 458 (1921) (wrongful-death recovery is for heirs, not part of the decedent’s estate; action is for beneficiaries)
- Cross v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 60 Cal.2d 690 (1964) (describing wrongful-death action as single, joint, and indivisible for purposes of a one-action rule)
- Jones v. Prince George’s County, 348 F.3d 1014 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (distinguishing the right to intervene from the right to initiate suit; intervention requires an interest, not a separate cause of action)
- Purnell v. Akron, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991) (an intervenor need not have standing to commence the lawsuit to qualify for intervention)
- Rhode v. National Medical Hosp., 93 Cal.App.3d 528 (1979) (intervention is treated as part of the main action to avoid multiplicity of suits)