People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. CA2/1

Filed 7/8/16 P. v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B259849

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ3946, TA127877) v.

INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David R. Fields, Judge. Affirmed. John M. Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Ruben Baeza, Jr., Assistant County Counsel, Brian T. Chu, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Lindsay Yoshiyama, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ———————————

Bail surety Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (Lumbermens) appeals from a trial court order denying Lumbermens’ motion to set aside summary judgment. We affirm. BACKGROUND On August 21, 2013, Lumbermens (through its agent Remedy Bail Bonds) posted a $100,000 bail bond to secure the release of criminal defendant Cesar Cruz (Cruz).1 Cruz failed to appear at a hearing on December 4, 2013, and the trial court (Judge Eleanor J. Hunter) declared the bail forfeited. The court clerk served the order of forfeiture by mail to Lumbermens on December 6, 2013. Cruz’s appearance period (during which the order of forfeiture could be set aside, should he appear in court) was set to expire on June 9, 2014. On June 6, 2014, Lumbermens moved pursuant to Penal Code section 1305.42 to extend the appearance period for an additional 180 days. A declaration from an investigator described his efforts to locate Cruz and stated that he believed he could locate and surrender Cruz if the court granted the extension. On June 9, 2014, the case was transferred to Judge John T. Doyle. On June 20, 2014, Judge Doyle heard Lumbermens’ motion to extend. Judge Doyle stated, “It’s a motion to extend time on the bond. How much time did you want and what’s the People’s position?” The district attorney interjected, “Your honor, the bond was forfeited by Judge Hunter on December 4th of 2013. I have a transcript from the proceedings. So I—I don’t think counsel was aware of that. So I did just show him that if the court would like to look at it. But it was forfeited.” The court responded, “If that’s what you say, that’s what happened. Counsel.” Lumbermens’ attorney replied, “Your honor, I would just submit on your ruling.” Judge Doyle denied the motion to extend the appearance period.