People v. Seaview Ins. Co. CA2/2

Filed 3/26/14 P. v. Seaview Ins. Co. CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B250027

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. OSJ1538) v.

SEAVIEW INSURANCE COMANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Arthur Jean, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Robert Tomlin White and Toni L. Martinson for Defendant and Appellant.

Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel and Joanne Nielsen, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Seaview Insurance Company (Seaview) appeals from entry of summary judgment following the trial court’s denial of its motion, under Penal Code section 1305.4, 1 to extend the exoneration period for the bail bond it posted for criminal defendant Jose Luis Soto (Soto). The record discloses no abuse of discretion by the trial court and we therefore affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On August 8, 2012, Seaview posted a $70,000 bond for the release of Soto, who had been charged with robbery. Soto failed to appear in court on September 28, 2012, and the trial court ordered his bail forfeited. Notice of the forfeiture was mailed to Seaview on October 3, 2012. Seaview timely moved under section 1305.4 to extend the time for entry of summary judgment on the bail forfeiture by 180 days. The motion was supported by the declaration of investigator Dan Chong (Chong), who averred that he had been looking for Soto since October 1, 2012. Chong declared that he had spoken by telephone with Soto’s mother and with his girlfriend, Christina Villafana (Villafana), who were coindemnitors on the bond. Both Villafana and Soto’s mother denied any knowledge of Soto’s whereabouts and neither returned any of the investigator’s subsequent calls. Villafana said she was no longer dating Soto and had not heard from him since he had been released on bail. Chong stated that he conducted numerous surveillance trips between November 2012 and January 2013 to Soto’s listed address in Carson, and to Villafana’s listed address in Vista, but he did not observe Soto at either location. Chong undertook searches of courts and jails within California, as well as database and social networking searches, but uncovered no leads as to Soto’s location. Chong also developed two confidential informants who agreed to contact him if they saw Soto. On March 24, 2013, one of the informants called Chong and reported having seen someone resembling Soto at the Vista address. Chong had learned that