Filed 5/17/21 Reposted - published opinion CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR THE PEOPLE, B297049 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. OSJ2146) v. FINANCIAL CASUALTY & SURETY, INC., Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Victoria B. Wilson, Judge. Affirmed. Law Office of John Rorabaugh, Crystal L. Rorabaugh and John Mark Rorabaugh for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the County Counsel, Rodrigo A. Castro-Silva, Acting County Counsel, Adrian G. Gragas, Assistant County Counsel, and Michael J. Gordon, Deputy County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent. INTRODUCTION Appellant Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (Financial Casualty) executed a bail bond to secure the release from custody of criminal defendant Jose Geronimomendez, promising to guarantee Geronimomendez’s appearance in court or pay $60,000, the amount at which bail had been previously set by the court. After Geronimomendez failed to appear, the trial court ordered the bond forfeited and later signed and entered summary judgment against Financial Casualty on the bond. Financial Casualty moved to set aside the judgment under Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d). It argued that the judgment was void because the court failed to inquire into Geronimomendez’ ability to pay bail, as required by In re Humphrey (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1006 (Humphrey), review granted May 23, 2018, ordered to have partial precedential effect August 26, 2020, S247278, affd. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 135. Financial Casualty did not argue that the court failed to “enter” summary judgment as required by Penal Code section 1306,1 or that the bond should not be enforced under principles of unconscionability. The court denied the motion on six separate grounds, including that even if Humphrey error had occurred, it did not abrogate Financial Casualty’s obligations under the bond. On appeal from the court’s order denying its motion, Financial Casualty contends the court erred because: (1) the court did not “enter” 1 Undesignated references to statutes are to the Penal Code. 2 judgment within the 90-day statutory period as set forth under section 1306, subdivisions (a) and (c); (2) the court violated Humphrey’s requirement in setting bail, rendering the judgment entered on the bond void; and (3) the bail-setting order was an unconscionable contract between Geronimomendez and the state. We reject these contentions. As reflected on the file-stamped order granting summary judgment, the trial timely entered judgment on the bond. Any failure by the trial court to consider Geronimomendez’s ability to pay bail, even if erroneous, did not void the bond or judgment entered thereon. Finally, the unconscionability claim has been forfeited by Financial Casualty’s failure to raise it below, and, in any event, the claim is meritless because it is directed at a judicial order rather than a contract. We affirm the orders granting summary judgment and denying the motion to set aside the summary judgment. BACKGROUND 1. The Judgment on the Bail Bond In February 2017, the People charged Jose Geronimomendez with possession or …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals