People v. Bankers Insurance Co. CA2/5

Opinion

Filed 9/18/26 P. v. Bankers Insurance Co. CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B344413 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. 25AVSJ0013-01, v. XNOMA080612-02)

BANKERS INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Theresa R. McGonigle, Judge. Affirmed. Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Keever Rhodes Muir, Assistant County Counsel, Erin A. Chang, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. I. INTRODUCTION A surety, Bankers Insurance Company, and its bail agent, Avengers Bail Bonds (collectively, the surety), appeal from a trial court’s entry of judgment against it. We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On January 26, 2021, the Los Angeles County District Attorney filed a complaint alleging that the defendant committed battery resulting in serious bodily injury, in violation of Penal Code section 243, subdivision (d).1 On March 2, 2021, the surety posted a bail bond in the amount of $110,000 to secure the defendant’s release from custody. On September 7, 2022, after the defendant failed to appear for a pretrial hearing, the trial court declared the bond forfeited and mailed a notice of forfeiture to the surety, pursuant to section 1305, subdivision (b). The notice provided that the forfeiture would become final on March 17, 2023, that is, in 180 days, plus five days for mailing, unless the surety surrendered the defendant to the court or to custody before that date (the appearance period). On March 13, 2023, the surety filed a request for a 180-day extension of the appearance period. On March 22, 2023, the surety sent to the District Attorney a request for the extradition of the defendant. The surety advised the District Attorney that it had located the defendant in Texas and requested approval of his extradition to Los Angeles.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 On March 23, 2023, the District Attorney advised the surety that the he would seek the defendant’s extradition and provided the surety with “notice that the People will move the court to order that [the surety] pay the costs of extradition, pursuant to ... [s]ection 1306[, subdivision] (b)” and “provide an accounting of the actual costs upon the defendant’s return to court and prior to the court exonerating the bond.” On April 14, 2023, the trial court granted the surety’s request for a 180-day extension of the appearance, to October 11, 2023. On April 28, 2023, following his extradition from Texas, the defendant appeared before the trial court. The prosecutor requested “that any exoneration of the bail … be subject to the cost of extradition pursuant to ... section 1306[, subdivision] (b).” The court granted the request and issued a minute order stating that the bond forfeiture was “exonerated subject to the costs of extradition pursuant to ... section 1306[, subdivision] (b).” On March 18, 2024, the District Attorney filed a motion to recover extradition costs, pursuant to section 1306, subdivision (b), in the amount of $11,181.95 that included a declaration and exhibits supporting the calculation of actual extradition costs. The surety opposed the motion. On September 24, 2024, the surety filed a motion to vacate the bond forfeiture and exonerate bond even though, as noted, the trial court had already exonerated the bond forfeiture. The surety argued that the court lacked jurisdiction to impose extradition costs because on April 28, 2023, it failed to impose a monetary payment as a condition of relief or mail notice of the forfeiture, as required by section 1305, subdivision (b). It also argued that the court had failed to provide notice of the 3 assessment, which was a condition of the order exonerating bond, as required by section 1305.2. On November 1, 2024, the trial court heard both the District Attorney’s motion for extradition costs and the surety’s motion to vacate the bond forfeiture. Following argument, the court granted the District Attorney’s motion to recover extradition costs in the amount of $11,181.95, and denied the surety’s motion to vacate the bond forfeiture and exonerate bond without the payment of extradition costs. The court then set a hearing on the status of payment of extradition costs. On January 24, 2025, the trial court conducted a hearing on the status of payment of extradition costs. The court found that the surety had not paid extradition costs, which the surety does not dispute, and ordered that summary judgment be entered against the surety. On January 28, 2025, the court entered judgment against the surety in the amount of $11,616.95. The surety timely filed a notice of appeal.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review and Legal Principles “‘We review the denial of a motion to vacate a bond forfeiture and to exonerate the bond for an abuse of discretion.’ [Citation.] However, ... ‘“[w]hen the facts are undisputed and only legal issues are involved, appellate courts conduct an independent review.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 209, 215–216 (The North River Ins. Co.).) “‘“When a person for whom a bail bond has been posted fails without sufficient excuse to appear as required, the trial 4 court must declare a forfeiture of the bond. (§ 1305, subd. (a).) The 185 days after the date the clerk of the court mails a notice of forfeiture (180 days plus five days for mailing) to the appropriate parties is known as the appearance period. (§ 1305, subd. (b).)” (People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 1079, 1085.) Upon a showing of good cause, “[s]ection 1305.4 allows up to 180 days of extension” of the initial appearance period under section 1305. (People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 35, 43.) “[U]nder section 1305, subdivision (c)(1), ‘If the defendant appears either voluntarily or in custody after surrender or arrest in court within [the appearance period], the court shall, on its own motion at the time the defendant first appears in court on the case in which the forfeiture was entered, direct the order of forfeiture to be vacated and the bond exonerated.’ Further, ‘[i]f the court fails to so act on its own motion, then the surety’s ... obligations under the bond shall be immediately vacated and the bond exonerated.’ (§ 1305, subd. (c)(1).) Finally, ‘[a]n order vacating the forfeiture and exonerating the bond may be made on terms that are just and do not exceed the terms imposed in similar situations with respect to other forms of pretrial release.’ (Ibid.)” (The North River Ins. Co., supra, 120 Cal.App.5th at p. 215.)

B. Analysis The surety contends that the trial court’s judgment, entered on January 28, 2025, was untimely under section 1306, subdivision (c) because the bond forfeiture had not been set aside during the appearance, which ended on October 11, 2023.

5 According to the surety, “the first day summary judgment could be entered was October 12, 2023, while the last day summary judgment could be entered was 90 days later, on January 10, 2024.” The surety’s argument is meritless. As we explain above, when the defendant appeared in court on April 28, 2023, the court exonerated the bail forfeiture, subject to the payment of extradition costs, which constitutes a prompt performance of its duties. Thus, section 1306, subdivision (c), which provides that “[i]f, because of the failure of any court to promptly perform the duties enjoined upon it pursuant to [section 1305], summary judgment is not entered within 90 days after the date upon which it may first be entered,” does not apply.2 2 We also reject the surety’s contention that we must accept its argument that section 1306, subdivision (c), divested the trial court of jurisdiction in this matter because a contrary ruling would “lead[] to absurdity ... [as] [i]t would permit the entry of summary judgment for costs ... to remain pending for several years or even decades without resolution.” Section 1306, subdivision (b), by its express terms, authorizes a court to “determine[ ] that in the best interest of justice no costs should be imposed.” A court therefore could conclude that no costs should be imposed on a late request for extradition costs.

6 IV. DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. Plaintiff is awarded costs on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM (D.), J.

We concur:

HOFFSTADT, P. J.

BAKER, J.