People v. Financial Casualty & Surety - Case Brief

6 Mins read

People v. Financial Casualty & Surety

Case Number: D078294

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2021-12-21

Case Brief – People v. Financial Casualty & Surety

Court: COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: D078294
Disposition: Affir­med

Holding

The court held that Emergency Rule 9, which tolled statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action during the COVID‑19 emergency, does not toll the statutory “appearance period” allotted to a bail‑bond surety to vacate a forfeiture; consequently, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the bond was not premature and the judgment was affirmed.

Narrative

When the pandemic shut down California courts in the spring of 2020, bail‑bond sureties feared that the statutory deadlines for vacating forfeitures would be rendered meaningless. People v. Financial Casualty & Surety resolved that question, confirming that the emergency tolling rule adopted by the Judicial Council does not extend to the appearance period prescribed by Penal Code § 1305. The decision preserves the existing framework for bail‑bond forfeiture proceedings and clarifies the limited reach of emergency procedural rules.

Procedural backdrop – Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (the “Surety”) posted a $30,000 bail bond for defendant Shuxin Liu on December 4, 2018. Liu failed to appear on March 11, 2019, prompting the San Diego County Superior Court to declare the bond forfeited on March 19, 2019. Under Penal Code § 1305, a surety has an initial 185‑day “appearance period” to produce the defendant or otherwise demonstrate good cause to set aside the forfeiture. The trial court extended that period to April 14, 2020, a motion the parties later stipulated to the record.

The pandemic‑era court orders that declared every day from March 17, 2020 through May 22, 2020 a “court holiday” for filing purposes effectively stretched the appearance period to May 26, 2020. The Surety never moved to vacate the forfeiture, and on August 3, 2020—within the 90‑day window after the extended deadline—the trial court entered summary judgment for the People, awarding the $30,000 bond plus costs and interest. The Surety appealed, asserting that Emergency Rule 9 (adopted by the Judicial Council in response to COVID‑19) tolled the appearance period, rendering the August judgment premature.

Legal issue – Does Emergency Rule 9, which tolls statutes of limitations and repose for civil causes of action, also toll the appearance period for vacating a bail‑bond forfeiture, thereby delaying the deadline for summary judgment?

Statutory framework – Penal Code §§ 1305 (appearance period and extensions) and 1306 (summary judgment after the period expires) govern bail‑bond forfeiture. Emergency Rule 9, as amended, tolls statutes of limitations exceeding 180 days from April 6, 2020 to October 1, 2020, and those of 180 days or less from April 6, 2020 to August 3, 2020. The rule’s advisory committee comment emphasizes that it applies to “the filing of a pleading in court asserting a civil cause of action,” including “special proceedings,” and extends to statutes in codes beyond the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court’s analysis – The appellate court first acknowledged that a bail‑bond forfeiture proceeding is a civil matter, albeit collateral to the underlying criminal case. However, it distinguished the nature of the appearance period from a traditional statute of limitations. A statute of limitations, the court reiterated, “sets the time within which proceedings must be commenced once a cause of action accrues.” The appearance period, by contrast, is a deadline for a surety to assert defenses after the forfeiture proceeding has already been initiated by the court’s declaration of forfeiture. The court emphasized that a motion to vacate is not a pleading; it is an ancillary request within an existing action. Accordingly, the appearance period does not “commence” a civil cause of action and therefore falls outside the scope of Emergency Rule 9.

The court further rejected the Surety’s reliance on People v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., where the appearance period was analogized to a statute of limitations. The appellate panel noted that Stuyvesant used the analogy merely for illustrative purposes and did not establish binding authority. Moreover, the policy favoring sureties in forfeiture cases cannot override the plain language of the emergency rule, which expressly targets the filing of initial pleadings, not deadlines for defensive motions.

Finally, the court dismissed the Surety’s belated force‑majeure argument, noting that issues raised for the first time in a reply brief are generally inadmissible because they deprive the opposing party of an opportunity to respond.

Holding and disposition – Because Emergency Rule 9 does not toll the appearance period, the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on August 3, 2020 was timely. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, leaving the $30,000 forfeiture intact.

Implications – The decision draws a clear line between procedural tolling mechanisms and the statutory deadlines that govern bail‑bond forfeiture defenses. Practitioners must continue to monitor appearance‑period deadlines closely, even during court closures, and cannot rely on emergency tolling rules to extend those deadlines. The ruling also signals that the Judicial Council’s emergency rules will be interpreted narrowly, limited to the filing of initial pleadings rather than to ancillary motions within ongoing proceedings.

Unresolved questions remain regarding how other pandemic‑related procedural accommodations—such as extensions of filing deadlines for motions—might interact with statutory deadlines in different contexts. Future litigation may test the boundary between “special proceedings” and ordinary civil actions, especially where statutes of repose are at issue. For now, sureties must treat the appearance period as a firm, non‑tollable deadline, irrespective of extraordinary circumstances.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Penal Code §§ 1305, 1306 – Appearance period and summary judgment for bail‑bond forfeiture.
  • Emergency Rule 9 (Judicial Council of California, Circulating Order No. CO‑0‑09, May 22, 2020, as amended).
  • Code of Civil Procedure §§ 12, 12a – Definition of court holidays for filing purposes.
  • Statutory interpretation principles – Distinction between statutes of limitations and procedural deadlines.
  • Key cases:
    • People v. Financial Casualty & Surety, Inc. (2016) 2 Cal.5th 35 – Definition of bail bond and forfeiture.
    • People v. The North River Ins. Co. (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 300 – Appearance‑period rules and extensions.
    • People v. American Contractors Indemnity Co. (2004) 33 Cal.4th 653 – Voidability of premature summary judgment.
    • People v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co. (1963) 216 Cal.App.2d 380 – Analogy of appearance period to statute of limitations.
    • In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439 – Motion vs. pleading distinction.
    • People v. Seneca Ins. Co. (2003) 29 Cal.4th 954 – Limits of “strict construction” in procedural contexts.

These authorities collectively shape the appellate court’s reasoning and provide a roadmap for practitioners navigating bail‑bond forfeiture matters amid procedural disruptions.