County of Los Angeles v. Financial Casualty & Surety Inc.
236 Cal. App. 4th 37
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Financial Casualty posted a $50,000 bail bond for Giovanni Santana, who failed to appear; clerk mailed a forfeiture notice extending the 180-day appearance period to 186 days.
- Financial Casualty timely filed a motion (under Pen. Code §1305(d)) to vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond, asserting Santana had been deported and barred from reentry.
- The motion was set for hearing within the statutory 30-day post-appearance window, but at the scheduled time the County reported Financial Casualty did not appear and the court took the matter off calendar; summary judgment on the forfeiture was later entered.
- Financial Casualty moved under Code Civ. Proc. §473(b) to set aside the forfeiture, asserting its attorney left the courthouse after a court clerk mistakenly told him the motion had been granted (surprise/excusable neglect).
- The trial court denied relief, finding it lacked jurisdiction to hear the motion because it was not decided within the §1305 time limits; the Court of Appeal reversed as to §473 relief and remanded to decide whether deportation established a "permanent disability" under §1305(d).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (County) | Defendant's Argument (Financial Casualty) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §473(b) relief is available after a timely motion to vacate forfeiture was taken off calendar | §1305 time limits deprive court of jurisdiction; §473 cannot resurrect untimely relief | §473 applies where original motion was timely filed and set for timely hearing but relief was denied due to attorney surprise/excusable neglect | Court: §473 relief not barred; trial court erred in finding lack of jurisdiction because the motion was timely filed and set for a timely hearing |
| Whether Financial Casualty established mistake/surprise/excusable neglect under §473(b) | Court should credit clerk’s declaration that motions may be taken under submission and that clerk doesn’t notify counsel of rulings | Attorney’s undisputed declaration that a clerk told him the motion was granted, leading him to leave, establishes surprise and excusable neglect | Court: Financial Casualty met §473(b) showing (surprise and excusable neglect); relief should be considered on remand |
| Whether deportation can establish a "permanent disability" under Pen. Code §1305(d) to vacate forfeiture | Argues surety must first pursue administrative immigration relief; deportation does not automatically create permanent disability | Surety argues deportation + statutory inadmissibility period can constitute permanent disability when return and prosecution are improbable | Court: Deportation can establish permanent disability if (1) deportation occurred, (2) period of inadmissibility, and (3) that period makes prosecution improbable; remanded for factual development |
| Burden and defenses on permanent-disability claim under §1305(d) | County may show available administrative remedies not pursued or likely extradition and prosecution would have followed | Surety bears initial burden to prove deportation and effect on prosecution probability | Court: Surety must show deportation and its consequences; government may rebut by proving administrative remedies reasonably available or likely extradition/prosecution would have succeeded |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. The North River Ins. Co., 200 Cal.App.4th 712 (2011) (§1305 timing rules do not preclude §473 relief where original motion was timely filed and set)
- People v. American Surety Ins. Co., 77 Cal.App.4th 1063 (2000) (deportation can constitute detention under §1305; parole/waiver remedies may be unavailable)
- People v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 64 Cal.App.3d 665 (1976) (court suggested administrative immigration relief should be pursued before vacatur)
- People v. Lexington National Ins. Corp., 181 Cal.App.4th 1485 (2010) (discusses standards for vacating forfeiture and likelihood of extradition impacting relief)
- Hodge Sheet Metal Products v. Palm Springs Riviera Hotel, 189 Cal.App.2d 653 (1961) (§473 policy favors deciding cases on merits; surprise/excusable neglect doctrine explained)