PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

2026CLEN061811: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION 06/03/2026 in Department 21 Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment & Exonerate Bail Bond per Penal Code 1305, 1306 et al

Tentative Rulings. Parties and counsel appearing for oral argument should address the tentative decision. Parties may submit on the tentative decision by email, with a copy to all other parties in the matter, to courtroom21@ventura.courts.ca.gov before 8:00 a.m. on the day set for the hearing, with a subject line that includes “SUBMISSION ON TENTATIVE”, Case Number, Title and Party. If fewer than all parties submit on the tentative, the hearing will proceed, and the tentative ruling is subject to change. The clerk cannot advise if you should still appear or not. The decision of whether to appear for a hearing is to be made by the parties and their counsel. (Dept. 21 Rules & Procedures, p. 4, § II.I.)

The following is a statement of the Court’s tentative ruling. The Court may adopt, modify or reject the tentative ruling after hearing. The tentative ruling has no legal effect unless and until adopted by the Court.

Motion: Motion by Acme Bail Bonds to Set Aside Summary Judgment & Exonerate Bail Bond per Penal Code § 1305, 1306 et. al. (unopposed)

Tentative Ruling: The motion to set aside summary judgment and to exonerate the bond is DENIED. Counsel for Petitioner Acme Bail Bonds is to give notice within two (2) court days. Background: The Notice of Order Forfeiting Bail was filed on March 9, 2026. The Surety Company is Lexington National Insurance Co. in Lutherville, MD. The Bail Agent is Acme Bail Bonds in Ventura, and the Defendant is Carmen Esqueda in case no. 2022010330. The Notice indicates the bond is $15,000, and this bond was forfeited on November 20, 2024, with a bench warrant issued, and states: “Your obligation under the surety bond or cash bail will become absolute on the 185th day following the date of the mailing of this notice of order forfeiting bail, unless the court, pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code Section 1305, orders the forfeiture set aside and the surety bond or cash bail reinstated or exonerated.” The Clerk’s certificate of service shows service by mail on November 21, 2024.

On March 10, 2026, a Summary Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment was filed, signed by Judge McKaig. The judgment noted that 185 days had elapsed since the mailing of the notice of forfeiture, and that judgment of $15,000, including costs of $370, was rendered and entered against Lexington as provided in Section 6103.5 of the Government Code and Penal Code section 1305. The Certificate of Clerk’s Service showed that Acme and Lexington, as well as

2026CLEN061811: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

County Counsel, were all served with Summary Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment on March 18, 2026. The Motion to Set Aside Summary Judgment & Exonerate Bail Bond was filed on April 20, 2026. No Opposition has been filed. Notably, service was made on moving-party’s counsel Edward C. Arthur, as well as on the DA. Discussion: The Court may take judicial notice of its own criminal court records, in case no. 2022010330. Evidence Code §§452, 453. The most recent docket entries are attached to the Motion, and the Court can review the public docket as well.

As noted by Petitioner and contained in the docket for the underlying criminal case, the bail bond was issued in May 2024, Esqueda appeared in court on July 17, 2024, August 28, 2024, and October 16, 2024, before failing to appear on November 20, 2024, when the Court ordered the bail bond forfeited. A Motion to Extend Forfeiture Period on Bond was filed on May 23, 2025, and at a June 17, 2025 hearing the Court granted the unopposed motion, with the docket indicating that “time extended to 12/14/25 on bail bond forfeiture as to bond #2024-CC_010458.” To vacate an order of forfeiture and exonerate the bond, the defendant must appear before the court within 180 days after notice of forfeiture. (Penal Code §1305(c); People v.

Accredited Sur. & Cas. Co. (2018) 26 Cal.App.5th 913.) The Court may extend the 180-day period. (See Penal Code §1305(e)(1).) However, after that date, the Court is without jurisdiction to consider a motion for relief from forfeiture and can only order summary judgment on the bond under section 1306. Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (c), provides: If, because of the failure of any court to promptly perform the duties enjoined upon it pursuant to this section, summary judgment is not entered within 90 days after the date upon which it may first be entered, the right to do so expires and the bail is exonerated. “Because the law disfavors forfeitures, sections 1305 and 1306 must be strictly construed in favor of the surety to avoid a forfeiture of the bond.” (County of Los Angeles v.

Ranger Ins. Co. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 10, 16.) “The standard of review, therefore, compels us to protect the surety, and more importantly the individual citizens who pledge to the surety their property on behalf of persons seeking release from custody, in order to obtain the corporate bond.” (County of Los Angeles v. Surety Ins. Co. (1984) 162 Cal.App.3d 58, 62.) “Failure to follow the jurisdictional prescriptions in sections 1305 and 1306 renders a summary judgment on the bail bond void.” (County of Los Angeles v.

Ranger Ins. Co., at p. 16.) Petitioner argues that the Court lost jurisdiction by failing to enter summary judgment within 90 days of December 14, 2025, i.e., March 14, 2026. Not so. The court record indicates that Summary Judgment was entered and filed on March 10, 2026 (before the March 14, 2026 deadline argued by Petitioner); the filed stamped copy of the “Summary Judgment and Notice of Entry of Judgment” shows a filing date of March 10, 2025. Petitioner’s argument is that because the Summary Judgment was not mailed until March 18, 2026, it was therefore not “entered” by March 14, 2026.

This argument is simply not persuasive, and there is no case law offered in support. Judgment was entered within 90 days of the December 14, 2025 date. The statute, though jurisdictional and voidable (see People v. Surety Ins. Co. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 75, 79),

2026CLEN061811: PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION

does not require mailing before the deadline – just entry of summary judgment. Here, the entry of summary judgment took place in accordance with the express terms of the statute. Unlike in People v. Topa Ins. Co. (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 296, 303, where the entry of judgment took place more than 45-days after the deadline, here entry of judgment admittedly took place within the statutory period. Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

3