People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. CA1/3

Filed 3/28/14 P. v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A137526, A138350 v. AMERICAN CONTRACTORS (San Mateo County INDEMNITY COMPANY, Super. Ct. No. CIV520247) Defendant and Appellant.

American Contractors Indemnity Company (American Contractors) is a professional surety company that appeals from an order denying its motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail. It argues that the notice of forfeiture was constitutionally insufficient and violated its due process rights. American Contractors also claims that a summary judgment entered on the forfeiture is void because it was entered while an appeal was pending from the order denying the motion to vacate forfeiture. We reject these contentions and affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2011, American Contractors, through its bail agent, posted a $100,000 bail bond for the release of Welid Hallal, who was facing a variety of criminal charges that included assault and making criminal threats. The court ordered bail forfeited after Hallal failed to appear in court on November 14, 2011. On December 5, 2011, the court clerk mailed a notice of forfeiture to American Contractors and its bail agent that read in

1

full: “You are hereby notified that Bail Bond No. AUL-2079128, in the sum of $100,000 was forfeited on 11/14/11. Defendant having failed to appear for Jury Trial.” On November 15, 2012, American Contractors filed a motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail on the ground the notice of forfeiture was constitutionally inadequate. The court denied the motion on December 7, 2012. American Contractors filed a notice of appeal on January 4, 2013. The appeal from the order denying the motion to vacate forfeiture and exonerate bail is pending as case number A137526. On March 7, 2013, while the appeal from the court’s order of December 7, 2012, was pending, the trial court entered a summary judgment on the bail forfeiture. American Contractors filed an appeal from the summary judgment on April 9, 2013, in case number A138350. We consolidated the appeals in A137526 and A138350 at the request of American Contractors. DISCUSSION 1. Sufficiency of Notice of Forfeiture American Contractors argues that the court lacked jurisdiction to enter summary judgment because the notice of forfeiture was constitutionally inadequate to satisfy due process standards. It claims the notice was insufficient because it failed to recite the statutory provisions under which relief from forfeiture could be obtained, including any relevant time limitations. As support for this proposition, American Contractors relies on principles established by the United States Supreme Court (see Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft (1978) 436 U.S. 1) and two California Court of Appeal decisions (People v. Swink (1984) 150 Cal.App.3d 1076 (Swink); Minor v. Municipal Court (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1541 (Minor)). In Swink and Minor, the Courts of Appeal held that a notice of bail forfeiture sent to a lay individual is insufficient if it fails to inform the recipient of the underlying statutory scheme governing bail forfeiture or the existence of jurisdictional time limits to exonerate bail. (Swink, supra, at p. 1082; Minor, supra, at pp. 1550–1551.) In People v. Accredited Surety & Casualty Co,. Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1137, 1142 (Accredited Surety), this court considered whether the analysis in Swink and Minor