Filed 10/14/20 P. v. The North River Ins. Co. CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

THE NORTH RIVER 

INSURANCE COMPANY et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 B295103

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. SJ4403)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of 

Los Angeles County, Anne Egerton, Dorothy Kim, David R. 

Fields, Maame Frimpong and Alison Matsumoto Estrada, Judges. 

Affirmed.

Jefferson T. Stamp for Defendants and Appellants 

The North River Insurance Company and Bad Boy Bail Bonds. 

Mary C. Wickham, County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, 

Assistant County Counsel, and Kelsey C. Nau, Deputy County 

Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 
2

The North River Insurance Company and its agent Bad 

Boys Bail Bonds (collectively North River parties) appeal the 

superior court’s order denying its motion to set aside summary 

judgment, vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond forfeited 

when the criminal defendant for whom it had been posted failed 

to appear in court as required. The North River parties argue on 

appeal, as they did in their motion to set aside, that the summary 

judgment was void because it had been entered by a different 

Los Angeles Superior Court judge from the one who had declared 

the bond forfeited. We rejected the identical argument in People 

v. The North River Ins. Co. (2020) 53 Cal.App.5th 559. We 

affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Bad Boys Bail Bonds posted a $75,000 bail bond on 

February 17, 2015 to secure the release of Alvaro Calderon from 

custody following his arrest. Calderon failed to appear in court 

on October 13, 2015 as required, and the court (Los Angeles 

Superior Court Judge Anne Egerton) ordered the bond forfeited. 

The clerk mailed the North River parties a notice of forfeiture on 

October 16, 2015.

When Calderon still failed to appear after several 

extensions of the appearance period had been granted at the 

request of the North River parties, Los Angeles Superior Court 

Judge David R. Fields signed and entered summary judgment in 

favor of the People. 

The North River parties moved to set aside the summary 

judgment, vacate forfeiture and exonerate the bond, arguing 

summary judgment entered by a judge who had not declared the 

forfeiture violated their statutory and due process rights. The

court denied the motion, and the North River parties appealed.
3

DISCUSSION

Penal Code section 1306, subdivision (a), requires “the 

court which has declared the forfeiture” of the bail bond to enter 

summary judgment against the bondsman if the defendant has 

failed to appear within the statutory appearance period. In 

People v. North River Ins. Co., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th 559 we held 

that language means exactly what it says: The same court that 

has jurisdiction over the matter must both declare the forfeiture 

and enter summary judgment; it “does not state, and does not 

mean, the same judge of the court must enter both orders.” (Id.

at p. 565.) 

We also rejected the North River parties’ contention that 

requiring the same bench officer who declared the forfeiture to 

enter summary judgment is a matter of due process. As we 

explained, that argument misapprehended the nature of 

summary judgment in the bail context. “Summary judgment 

following a declaration of forfeiture is a consent judgment entered 

without a hearing pursuant to the terms of the bail bond. . . . If 

the forfeiture has not been vacated at the end of the appearance 

period, the court has no choice but to enter summary judgment in 

accordance with the terms stated in the bond.” (People v. North 

River Ins. Co., supra, 53 Cal.App.5th at p. 567.) Here, as was 

true in our earlier North River case, the record before the court 

when it entered summary judgment reflected the declaration of 

forfeiture, the expiration of the appearance period during which 

forfeiture could be vacated and the absence of a pending motion 

to vacate forfeiture. With that information, the court was 

required to enter summary judgment in accordance with the 

bond’s terms. There was no due process violation. 
4

DISPOSITION

The order denying the North River parties’ motion to 

vacate summary judgment and exonerate the bond is affirmed. 

The People are to recover their costs on appeal. 

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

DILLON, J.*

*

Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.