Judge: Gregory W. Pollack, Case: 37-2023-00001224-CU-EN-CTL, Date: 2024-03-22 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - March 22, 2024

03/22/2024  09:30:00 AM  C-71 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Gregory W Pollack

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Enforcement Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00001224-CU-EN-CTL PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY INC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion

to Set Aside Summary Judgment Against Surety on Defaulted Bail Bond, 10/10/2023 The Court rules on defendant Fin. Cas. & Surety, Inc.'s (Defendant) motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate bail as follows: As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that plaintiff People of the State of Cal. filed a notice of non-opposition to this motion.

Defendant brings this unopposed motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473.

Penal Code section 1305 is a jurisdictional statute that explicitly provides that the court must forfeit bail if the defendant fails to appear on certain specified occasions, to wit: (A) arraignment (B) trial (C) judgment and (E) to surrender himself or herself in execution of the judgment after appeal. (People v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Co. (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1149.) In addition, the court must forfeit bail at '[a]ny other occasion prior to the pronouncement of judgment if the defendant's presence in court is lawfully required.' (Pen. Code§ 1305(a)(l)(D).) In People v. Safety National Cas. Corp. (2016) 62 Cal.4th 703, 710, the California Supreme Court confirmed that a defendant's presence is 'deemed 'lawfully required' when a specific court order commands his or her appearance at a date and time certain.' When the defendant fails to appear in court as lawfully required, a court is required to declare immediate forfeiture of the bail bond unless there is reason to believe that sufficient excuse exist for the defendant's failure to appear. (People v. United Bonding Ins. Co. (1971) 5 Cal.3d 898, 906.) Here, the court lost jurisdiction over the bond when the court failed to order bail forfeited upon the defendant's failure to appear for an arraignment as lawfully required without explanation on July 26, 2021.

Where, as here, the court did not forfeit the bond, the party attempting a later forfeiture must provide a sufficient excuse supported by records. (People v. American Bankers Ins. Co. (1989) 215 Cal.App.3d 1363, 1365-1366 (ABIC).) 'If the court fails to make such a record, the continuance - and any bail forfeiture that later is declared - will be invalid.' (People v. Allegheny Cas. Co. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 704, 718.) Here, the record provides no excuse for the failure to appear. Therefore, the court lost jurisdiction over this bond when it failed to declare a forfeiture of bail upon the defendant's unexcused absence on July 26, 2021, and the forfeiture subsequently entered on October 20, 2021, is void. (ABIC, supra, 215 Cal.App.3d 1363, 1370.) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067741  13 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS FINANCIAL  37-2023-00001224-CU-EN-CTL Based on the foregoing, the motion is granted. The Court sets aside the judgment, vacates the forfeiture and exonerates bail.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3067741  13