Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00038199-CU-EN-CTL, Date: 2023-12-08 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - December 07, 2023

12/08/2023  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Enforcement Motion Hearing (Civil) 37-2023-00038199-CU-EN-CTL PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendant Bankers Insurance Company's unopposed motion to set aside summary judgment on bond forfeiture is GRANTED.

As of December 7, 2023, Plaintiff People of the State of California has not filed any opposition to Defendant's motion. Pursuant to this court's local rules, this failure to respond will be regarded as a concession that Defendant's motion has merit. (See San Diego Superior Court Local Rule 2.1.19, subd.

(B).) Defendant seeks to set aside the summary judgment bond forfeiture of Bond No. 515026048-2 entered on September 5, 2023 on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter judgment. Defendant contends that the trial court in the related criminal case violated Defendant's due process and statutory rights when it reinstated the bond on August 25, 2023 without giving prior notice to Defendant and its bail agent. (See County of Madera v. Ranger Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 271, 277 ['[T]he surety must be considered an adversary party and thus afforded notice and the opportunity to be heard before a reinstatement and rerelease order is made.'].) The court agrees. Based on the record before it, it appears Defendant was only given notice of the reinstatement after it was ordered; there is no evidence Defendant was given prior notice.

'It has been repeatedly held that since the law disfavors forfeitures and statutes imposing them, such as this one, the statute must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid the harsh results of a forfeiture. It is also to be construed in light of the principle that 'where a statute requires a court to exercise its jurisdiction in a particular manner, follow a particular procedure, or subject to certain limitations, an act beyond those limits is in excess of its jurisdiction.'' (People v. Wilshire Ins. Co. (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 216, 220.) Penal Code section 1305, subdivision (c)(4), states: In lieu of exonerating the bond, the court may order the bail reinstated and the defendant released on the same bond if both of the following conditions are met: (A) The bail is given prior notice of the reinstatement.

(B) The bail has not surrendered the defendant.

Here, the criminal defendant, Ryan Gabaldon, was released on bail on June 5, 2022, and failed to appear for a readiness conference on July 28, 2022, at which time bail was forfeited, and notice of the Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020738  22 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS BANKERS  37-2023-00038199-CU-EN-CTL forfeiture sent to Defendant on August 8, 2022. Thereafter, on August 25, 2022, the trial court allowed Mr. Gabaldon to remain at liberty, set aside the bail forfeiture, and reinstated the bail bond. However, absent from the minute orders and the record as a whole is any indication that Defendant was afforded prior notice of the trial court's intent to reinstate the bond. This failure to give notice is a jurisdictional defect that requires the release of Defendant's obligation. (County of Madera v. Ranger Ins. Co., supra, 230 Cal.App.3d at p. 279.) 'The court's failure to follow a strict statutory direction designed for the surety's protection exonerated the surety. The court thereafter lacked jurisdiction either to forfeit the bail or to enter a summary judgment.' (Id. [quoting People v. Resolute Ins. Co. (1975) 50 Cal.App.3d 433, 437].) Accordingly, the September 5, 2023 summary judgment against surety on defaulted bail bond No.

5150260482 is vacated, and Bail Bond No. 515026048-2 is ordered exonerated.

The minute order is the order of the court.

Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3020738  22