People v. The North River Insurance Co. CA2/7

Filed 10/6/20 P. v. The North River Insurance Co. CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B295098

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ4402) v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE CO. et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Alison Estrada, Judge. Affirmed. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants. Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, Assistant County Counsel, and Kelsey C. Nau, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

`

Bad Boys Bail Bonds, acting as the agent for The North River Insurance Company (collectively, North River), posted a bail bond to secure the release of a criminal defendant. When the defendant subsequently failed to appear at his arraignment, a superior court judge ordered the bond forfeited. A different superior court judge subsequently entered summary judgment against North River on the bond, and a third superior court judge later denied North River’s motion to set aside the summary judgment. North River appealed. North River argues the superior court violated its due process rights and statutory rights under Penal Code section 1306 because the judge who entered the summary judgment was not the same judge who declared the forfeiture. We rejected the identical arguments by North River in People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 559, 566-567. The order is affirmed. The People are to recover their costs on appeal.

SEGAL, Acting P. J.

We concur: