County of Los Angeles v. Allegheny Casualty Co.
B268667
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 18, 2017Background
- Allegheny Casualty (through Nelly’s Bail Bonds) posted three bail bonds on Sept 12, 2014 for defendants charged with extortion; defendants failed to appear and clerk mailed forfeiture notices on Oct 14, 2014.
- The statutory appearance period after mailing was 185 days (180 days plus 5 mailing days) ending April 17, 2015.
- On April 14, 2015 Allegheny moved under Penal Code §1305.4 to extend the appearance periods; the court granted an extension on April 23, 2015, extending the period 174 days to Oct 14, 2015 (first extension order).
- Allegheny filed a second extension motion calendared for Nov 6, 2015, seeking roughly an additional 6–10 days; the People opposed. The trial court denied the second motion as beyond its authority.
- Allegheny appealed; while appeals were pending two defendants later were returned to custody but after the contested extension period. The Court of Appeal affirmed, applying People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Allegheny was entitled to an additional 6 days extension after the court already granted a first extension | Allegheny: it was deprived of those days and needed them to locate defendants; the court could grant the short additional extension | People: no, the court’s authority to extend had expired and no further extension could be granted | Court: denied — when second motion was heard more than 180 days from the first extension order, the court lacked authority to extend further |
| Whether Penal Code §1305 subdivision (j) tolls the allowable extension period for subsequent extension motions (i.e., permits hearings beyond the 180-day cap measured from the first extension order) | Allegheny: subdivision (j)’s 30-day hearing tolling (and continuances) should permit additional hearing time and thus extendability beyond the 180-day window | People: subdivision (j) does not expand the maximum 180-day extension measured from the first extension order; allowing tolling to exceed 180 days would conflict with §1305.4’s "not exceeding 180 days from its order" limit | Court: held subdivision (j) does not permit extending the maximum beyond 180 days from the first extension order; Financial Casualty controls and bars further extension when hearing occurs after that 180-day cap |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc., 2 Cal.5th 35 (Supreme Court holding that total allowable extension is limited to 180 days from the first extension order regardless of number of subsequent orders)
- People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co., 33 Cal.4th 653 (discusses surety liability and forfeiture basics)
- People v. United States Fire Ins. Co., 242 Cal.App.4th 991 (court treated extension measured from date of extension order and found summary judgment premature while motion pending)
- County of Los Angeles v. Williamsburg Nat. Ins. Co., 235 Cal.App.4th 944 (directed full hearing on second §1305.4 motion; noted maximum extension tied to 180-day limit)
- People v. Accredited Surety & Cas. Co., Inc., 137 Cal.App.4th 1349 (addressed abuse of discretion in denying §1305.4 motion where good cause shown)