P. v. North River Ins. Co. CA5

Filed 5/14/13 P. v. North River Ins. Co. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F065542 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F11905613) v.

THE NORTH RIVER INSURANCE OPINION COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Brant K. Bramer, Commissioner. Harold Rubinfeld for Defendants and Appellants. Kevin B. Briggs, County Counsel, and Evan A. Merat, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Cornell, J. and Kane, J.

This is an appeal from summary judgment entered on a bail bond. Appellants The North River Insurance Company and Absolute Bonding Corporation contend the trial court abused its discretion in denying their motion to extend the statutory forfeiture period under Penal Code section 1305.4. (All further section references are to the Penal Code.) We affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Criminal defendant Rafael Arturo Diaz failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance on December 13, 2011. The court forfeited his bail bond and issued a notice to appellants, who had provided the bond. Over the next several months, agents for appellants determined Diaz no longer lived at the address he had given them. Searches through various reporting services did not provide usable information. The agents contacted Diaz’s “indemnitor” on the bail bond, Miguel Castillo Moreno, on several occasions. Each time, the indemnitor provided somewhat vague information and promised to try to locate Diaz. The agents followed through on leads provided by the indemnitor, but the information repeatedly proved inaccurate. In addition to providing information about Diaz’s possible location in the Fresno area, the indemnitor stated in January 2012 that Diaz “may have returned to Mexico.” In April 2012, the indemnitor told the agents Diaz’s friend “thinks that the defendant has fled back to Mexico.” The indemnitor promised to obtain Diaz’s address in Mexico from the friend, but he never did so. On approximately May 27, 2012, an agent for appellants conducted further searches of electronic databases, including criminal arrest databases, but no further information on Diaz was found. On May 30, 2012, agents again visited the indemnitor. This time, he stated that Diaz had moved to Mexico in December 2011 and that indemnitor had thereafter gone with Diaz’s friend to a Western Union office to transfer money to Diaz at an office in Tlalpan, Mexico, a small town near Mexico City. The indemnitor claimed Diaz had gone there to live with Diaz’s mother.