People v. The North River Ins. Co. CA6

Filed 11/18/20 P. v. The North River Ins. Co. CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H044543 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1496843)

v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

After a criminal defendant failed to appear at a change of plea hearing, the trial court filed a notice of forfeiture of the bail bond that had been posted and secured by defendants The North River Insurance Company and Bad Boys Bail Bonds (collectively, the surety). The surety moved to vacate bail forfeiture before the end of the forfeiture period, but the trial court entered summary judgment forfeiting the bond before it heard argument on the motion. The surety appealed the summary judgment but then also pursued its motion to vacate forfeiture in the trial court, which was ultimately denied. The surety argues in this appeal that the trial court’s entry of summary judgment was premature, and also that the bail bond should be exonerated because the trial court never entered a second summary judgment after denying the surety’s motion to vacate forfeiture. For the reasons stated here, we will reverse the summary judgment as premature and remand the matter for resolution of the motion to vacate bail forfeiture.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS 1 The surety issued a $25,000 bail bond for a criminal defendant (Carlos Hernandez) in 2015. Hernandez failed to appear at a hearing later that year, and the trial court issued a notice of bail forfeiture giving the surety 180 days to secure Hernandez’s appearance. The trial court later granted the surety’s request for a 90-day extension. Before the extension expired, the surety moved to vacate bail forfeiture and exonerate the bond based on various statutory grounds, or alternatively to further extend or toll the deadline to produce Hernandez. The following day, without deciding the surety’s pending motion, the trial court entered summary judgment on the bond at issue here. The surety timely appealed. The surety had also issued two other bail bonds for Hernandez in different cases that are not directly at issue in this appeal. The trial court issued notices of forfeiture of those bonds, based on the same failure to appear that gave rise to the notice of forfeiture in this case. (See People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 443, 446– 447.) The surety filed motions to vacate bail forfeiture in the other two cases on the same grounds as the motion filed in this case. After filing the notice of appeal in this case, the surety filed numerous declarations and memoranda in the trial court related to its still pending motions to vacate forfeiture of the three bonds it had issued for Hernandez. The trial court heard the three motions together, and denied them all. The surety then moved in the trial court to vacate the summary judgment in this case––the judgment the surety had already appealed. The trial court ultimately found it lacked jurisdiction to hear that motion due to the pending appeal.