County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety Inc.
236 Cal. App. 4th 37, 2015 Cal. App. LEXIS 333, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) from a default on a bail forfeiture motion is not barred by the jurisdictional time limits of Penal Code § 1305, provided the original motion was timely. Additionally, a defendant's deportation may constitute a 'permanent disability' under § 1305(d) if the period of inadmissibility makes prosecution improbable, without requiring the surety to first exhaust federal administrative remedies to secure the defendant's return.
Facts:
- Giovanni Santana was charged with assault with a deadly weapon and issuing criminal threats.
- Financial Casualty & Surety Inc. (Financial Casualty) posted a $50,000 bail bond for Santana's release.
- Santana failed to appear for his scheduled arraignment.
- After his failure to appear, Santana was apprehended by U.S. civil authorities.
- Santana was subsequently deported to Mexico.
- As part of his removal, federal authorities issued a warning stating that Santana was prohibited from re-entering the United States for 20 years.
Procedural Posture:
- After Giovanni Santana failed to appear for arraignment, the trial court clerk mailed a notice of bail bond forfeiture to Financial Casualty.
- Financial Casualty filed a timely motion in the trial court to vacate the forfeiture and exonerate the bond, which was set for a hearing on February 22, 2013.
- When Financial Casualty's counsel failed to appear at the hearing, the trial court took the motion off its calendar.
- On March 25, 2013, the trial court entered summary judgment on the forfeiture against Financial Casualty.
- Financial Casualty then filed a motion under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) in the same trial court to set aside the summary judgment, arguing its attorney's failure to appear was due to excusable neglect.
- The trial court denied the § 473(b) motion, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction because the hearing fell outside the statutory time limits for forfeiture motions.
- Financial Casualty (appellant) appealed the denial of its § 473(b) motion to the Court of Appeal, with the County of Los Angeles as the respondent.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have jurisdiction to grant a motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b) when an attorney, reasonably relying on misinformation from a court clerk, fails to appear at a timely-set hearing on a motion to vacate a bail bond forfeiture?
Opinions:
Majority - Ashmann-Gerst, Acting P. J.
Yes, the trial court does have jurisdiction to grant such a motion. A court is not barred from hearing a motion for relief under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b) by the strict time limits of the bail forfeiture statute, as long as the original motion to vacate the forfeiture was timely filed and set for a timely hearing. The court's reasoning was twofold. First, it held that the trial court erred in finding it lacked jurisdiction, distinguishing between the deadlines for the underlying forfeiture motion (§ 1305) and a separate motion for equitable relief from a procedural default (§ 473). Second, the court found that Financial Casualty's attorney, Mathew Singer, had established 'surprise' and 'excusable neglect' by declaring he was misinformed by a court clerk that his motion had been granted, causing him to leave before it was called. The court stated that lawyers have a right to reasonably rely on information from court staff. The matter was remanded for the trial court to determine the merits of the original motion, specifically whether Santana's deportation and 20-year bar from re-entry constituted a 'permanent disability' under the new test established in this opinion.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interaction between the strict jurisdictional deadlines in bail forfeiture law and the equitable relief available under Code of Civil Procedure § 473(b), reinforcing the legal policy of deciding cases on their merits rather than on procedural technicalities. More significantly, the court established a new, practical, burden-shifting test for determining whether a defendant's deportation qualifies as a 'permanent disability.' By rejecting the precedent set in People v. Argonaut Ins. Co., which required a surety to first exhaust complex federal administrative remedies, this ruling makes it substantially more feasible for sureties to have a bond exonerated when a defendant is deported and barred from re-entry for a significant period.
