County of Los Angeles v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp. CA2/3 (2013) · DecisionDepot
County of Los Angeles v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp. CA2/3
California Court of Appeal Oct 18, 2013 No. B240244Unpublished
Filed 10/18/13 County of Los Angeles v. Lexington Nat. Ins. Corp. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, B240244
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ003703) v.
LEXINGTON NATIONAL INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Martin Gladstein, Temporary Judge. (Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. VI, § 21.) Affirmed.
E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Appellant.
Office of the County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel and
Joanne Nielsen, Principal Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________________
Defendant and appellant Lexington National Insurance Corporation (Lexington)
appeals from the summary judgment of bail forfeiture entered in favor of plaintiff and
respondent the County of Los Angeles. Lexington contends the trial court erred in
denying the surety‟s motion for a second extension of the 185-day period in which
Lexington could set aside the bail forfeiture. We disagree and affirm.
Lexington argues that the court abused its discretion in denying its second
motion for an extension because Lexington had established “good cause” within the
meaning of section 1305.4. However, Lexington‟s motion relied entirely on
Anthony R. Chiz‟s declaration which only demonstrated sporadic efforts to locate
Camacho. The only steps Chiz took to locate Camacho after the court granted the initial
extension of the forfeiture period were: (1) conducting surveillance on Camacho‟s
mother‟s house on October 20, 2011; (2) visiting Camacho‟s workplace on
November 15, 2011; and (3) going to the “defendant‟s location” at Moonbeam Avenue
an unspecified number of times between October 25, 2011 and November 20, 2011 to
talk with family members and neighbors there. Chiz took no further action to locate
Camacho up until January 11, 2012, when he signed his declaration.2
2 Lexington argues that the court erroneously concluded that Chiz‟s declaration was “essentially the same declaration” that supported the first motion for an extension. However, we cannot evaluate this argument because Lexington has not included the first motion or supporting declaration in the record. (Amato v. Mercury Casualty Co. (1993) 18 Cal.App.4th 1784, 1794 [“appellants . . . bear the burden of affirmatively showing error by an adequate record. (Citation.).].)
5
Even assuming that Chiz demonstrated due diligence, there is no evidence of
a reasonable likelihood that Lexington could bring Camacho into custody in another
90 days. First, Chiz does not explain why he believes that Moonbeam Avenue is
“defendant‟s location.” Second, although Lexington points to Camacho‟s
sister-in-law‟s representation that she would call Chiz when Camacho returned, there is
no evidence that the sister-in-law was telling Chiz the truth. Chiz‟s statement that
“[e]verything” the sister-in-law “told us is accurate” is not supported by any evidence
showing that the sister-in-law was being truthful. Furthermore, that the sister-in-law
was uncomfortable with Chiz talking to her neighbors does not necessarily lead to the
conclusion that she would cooperate to help apprehend Camacho. In fact, she may have
misinformed Chiz that Camacho was “leaving” for over two months in order to
persuade Chiz not to bother her during that period of time.
There is also no evidence supporting Chiz‟s conclusion that Camacho was
present at his workplace. Chiz only stated that Camacho‟s “distinctive” chair was in the
barber shop, however, this does not lead to an inference that Camacho was still working
there. Furthermore, although Chiz identified Camacho‟s mother‟s location, there is no
evidence that Camacho maintained contact with his mother, only Chiz‟s unsupported
conclusion that “the mother [was] protecting the defendant.” Lastly, Lexington‟s
argument that the court ignored Chiz‟s extensive experience in fugitive recovery is also
unavailing. Chiz‟s expertise in tracking down fugitives does constitute evidence that
Chiz would be skilled at capturing Camacho, however, it is not sufficient by itself,
6
without evidence that Chiz had made any progress in locating Camacho, to show
a likelihood of success in capturing Camacho in a subsequent 90 days.
Although “we strictly construe the relevant statutory provisions in favor of the
surety,” “[t]he surety . . . bears the burden of establishing that its case for relief falls
within the statutory requirements. [Citation.]” (People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2006)
139 Cal.App.4th 1562, 1564.) As Lexington did not carry its burden of showing good
cause in support of its motion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the
motion to extend the forfeiture period.
7
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The County shall recover its costs on appeal.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
CROSKEY, J.
WE CONCUR:
KLEIN, P. J.
KITCHING, J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a surety's motion for a second extension of the bail forfeiture period because the surety failed to demonstrate good cause or a reasonable likelihood of capturing the defendant.
Issues
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying a motion for a second extension of the 180-day bail forfeiture period under Penal Code section 1305.4?
Did the surety meet its burden of showing good cause for an extension by demonstrating due diligence and a reasonable likelihood of success in capturing the defendant?
Disposition. Affirmed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“As Lexington did not carry its burden of showing good cause in support of its motion, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to extend the forfeiture period.”