Judge Thomas Falls, Case 22PSCV00230 2023-03-27 Tentative Ruling

The Court may change tentative rulings at any time. Therefore, attorneys are advised to check this website to determine if any changes or updates have been made to the tentative ruling.

Counsel may submit on the tentative rulings by calling the clerk in Dept. O at 909-802-1126 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. Submission on the tentative does not bind the court to adopt the tentative ruling at the hearing should the opposing party appear and convince the court of further modification during oral argument.

The Tentative Ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such filing will be considered by the Court in the absence of permission first obtained following ex-parte application therefore.

This is a contracts case. Plaintiff GLORIA MITCHELL, doing business as GLORIA MITCHELL BAIL BONDS (“Plaintiff”) alleges the following against Defendants FRANCISCO VILLAMIL; ARIDAHI CONTRACT VILLAMIL; FELIX VILLAMIL; RUFINA AGUILAR; ANGELICA OSORIO; and PLACIDO DE LA CRUZ (collectively, “Defendants”)[1]: On October 4, 2020, the parties entered into a written bail bond contract wherein, per the terms, Plaintiff issued a bail bond to cause the release of FRANCISCO VILLAMIL from custody pending his court appearance. However, on January 25, 2021, FRANCISCO VILLAMIL failed to make his scheduled court appearance and the court issued its Notice of Order Forfeiting Bail in the sum of $155,000. Defendants have not repaid the $155,000 sum.

On January 9, 2023 (after the court clerk rejected two previous requests for entry of default), the court entered default as to Defendants Francisco Villamil, Placido De La Cruz, Felix Villamil, Aridahi Villamil, Rufina Aguilar.

On February 27, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant application. Doe Defendants have been dismissed.

Code of Civil Procedure section 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant has failed to timely answer after being properly served. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.1800.)

Plaintiff seeks entry of default judgments against Defendants in the total amount of $33,844.35, which is comprised of $33,301.96 in damages and $542.39 in costs.

Plaintiff seeks to impose liability on all Defendants because pursuant to paragraph of Bail Bond Agreement, each Defendant agreed to indemnify Plaintiff and hold Plaintiff harmless from any and all claims, lawsuits, damages, lost demands, liability, actions fees and expenses relating to arising out of the issuance of the bail bond.[2]

1. Plaintiff claims that her damages amount to $155,000 because Defendants have not repaid any of the amount; yet the application does not seek $155,000. Rather, the application seeks a “premium balance” of $4,450.00. The court is uncertain as to what constitutes the “premium balance” and proof/evidence thereof.

2. Part of the damages also $ 10,880.00 for ‘Relentless Bounty Inc.’ However, Plaintiff has not provided evidence thereof and what provision in the agreement allows for the recovery of this cost.

3. The judgment (JUD-100 form) does not indicate that attorney fees are sought (i.e., the section for ‘attorney fees’ is empty) yet the ‘Brief Summary of the Case’ indicates that attorney fees are sought. It appears Plaintiff has improperly lumped attorney fees into the damage’s calculation.

4. As for attorney fees, the following fees are sought: Attorney Brendan’s fees - $ 1,255.00 26 Attorney John Rorabaugh Fees - $ 4,824.15 27 Attorney Paul Mahoney’s Fees $ 7,315.20. However, Plaintiff has stated what provision in the Agreement allows for recovery of attorney fees. And, if recovery is permissible, there is no calculation provided to indicate that the attorney fees comply with the local rules.

[1] According to the attached ‘Bail Bond Agreement’ (Ex. A), the Defendants other than FRANCISCO VILLAMIL are the indemnitors.

[2] “6. You shall indemnify the Surety and keep the Surety indemnified and hold it harmless from and against any and all claims, lawsuits, damages, losses, liability, demands, actions, fees and expenses (including attorneys fees and costs) (together, “Liabilities”), relating to, or arising out of. Surety’s issuance or procurement of the Bond, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) the principal amount of any forfeiture of, or judgment on, the Bond, plus any related court costs, interest and legal fees incurred, (b) any fugitive recovery fee if there is a forfeiture of the Bond (which fee is typically ten percent [10%), of the amount of the Bond for an in-state recovery), plus any out of pocket expenses, (c) any and all extradition costs that may be incurred to apprehend and return Defendant to custody, and (U) if a collection action is required under this Agreement, reasonable and actual attorneys fees plus any and other costs, expenses and/or assessments that may be incurred as a result thereof and of any forfeiture of the Bond subject to applicable law (if any) as stated in the Supplemental Terms and Conditions below. The voucher, check or other evidence of any payment made by Surety shall be conclusive evidence of such payment in any action against you both as to the propriety of such payment and as to the extent of your liability to Surety for such payment. Further, you will, upon demand, place with Surety the requisite funds to meet any such Liabilities, whether that demand is made before or after Surety has paid or advanced such funds.”