People v. The North River Insurance Co. CA2/3

Filed 1/7/16 P. v. The North River Insurance Co. CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, B260899

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ3990) v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE CO. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,

David R. Fields, Judge. Dismissed.

Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants.

Office of the County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel and

Jessica C. Rivas, Senior Associate County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________________________

This is an appeal from a summary judgment pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1306, subdivision (a), following the forfeiture of a bail bond. We dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On May 24, 2012, The North River Insurance Company (surety) through its agent Bad Boy Bail Bonds (collectively, appellants) issued a bail bond in the amount of $30,000 securing the appearance of Juan Rodriguez in People v. Rodriguez, Superior Court case no. PA073799-01. The bond secured Rodriguez’s appearance throughout the pendency of the criminal case, including for pronouncement of judgment or grant of probation. The bond also stated that if forfeiture of the bond is ordered by the trial court, “judgment may be summarily made and entered forthwith” against the surety for $30,000. On June 14, 2012, Rodriguez appeared at his arraignment and requested and received a 60-day continuance of the arraignment to allow him to hire private counsel. The court then ordered Rodriguez to appear at the continued arraignment on August 13, 2012. Although Rodriguez’s newly-hired private attorney appeared at the August 13, 2012 arraignment, Rodriguez failed to appear and the court ordered the bond forfeited. In compliance with the provisions of section 1305, the court mailed notice of the bond forfeiture to appellants on August 14, 2012. The court granted several requests by the appellants to extend the 180-day appearance period set forth in section 1305. After appellants eventually concluded Rodriguez could not be located, the court entered summary judgment on the bond on November 19, 2014.2 The court mailed notice of entry of judgment to appellants on November 20, 2014. Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal on December 17, 2014.