Co. of LA v. Indiana Lumbemens Mutual Ins. Co.

Co. of LA v. Indiana Lumbemens Mutual Ins. Co.




Filed 5/19/11 Co. of LA v. Indiana Lumbemens Mutual Ins. Co. CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. INDIANA LUMBERMENS MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., Defendant and Respondent.

B223871 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SJ3453)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Terry A. Bork, Judge. Reversed.

Andrea Sheridan Ordin, County Counsel, Ralph L. Rosato, Assistant County Counsel, Liliana Campos, Senior Associate County Counsel, and Jason C. Carnevale, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Nunez & Bernstein and E. Alan Nunez for Defendant and Respondent.

_
DISCUSSION
The California Supreme Court recently held that a motion for relief from forfeiture of bail must be filed within 180 days of forfeiture, unless an extension of time is granted, even if the absconding defendant is arrested or surrendered to a different county. (People v. Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Ins. Co. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 301, 304.) We find that case dispositive here.
In this case, Indiana Lumbermens Mutual Insurance Company (Lumbermens) posted a $100,000 bond for defendant Robert Matthew Jones in Los Angeles Superior Court. Jones failed to make his required initial appearance on May 21, 2009. The trial court ordered that bail be forfeited and issued a warrant for his arrest. Jones was apprehended and surrendered to a detention center in San Bernardino County on June 27, 2009, and was subsequently incarcerated for an unrelated criminal offense at the California Correctional Institution in Chino, California. Unaware of Jones’ apprehension, the trial court entered summary judgment on the forfeited bond on January 6, 2010. Lumbermens filed its motion to set aside summary judgment, discharge forfeiture and exonerate the bail bond on February 11, 2010, over 70 days after the 180-day period had expired. Lumbermens never sought an extension of time. The trial court granted Lumbermens’ motion because, at the time of its ruling, there was a split in authority as to whether Lumbermens was obligated to file its motion within the 180-day period. (Compare People v. Lexington National Ins. Co. (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 370 with People v. Ranger Ins. Co. (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 867.) The Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue came three months later and now makes it clear that Lumbermens’ motion was untimely. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the trial court.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed and the summary judgment over the bail bond is reinstated. Each party to bear its own costs on appeal.
BIGELOW, P. J.
We concur:
RUBIN, J. GRIMES, J.