Posted 12/13/2012

In Dixon v. Wesbrook, Case No. 1:11-cv-1290 (E.D.Cal. December 11, 2012) the plaintiff alleged various torts by six unknown bail bond agents of the surety’s who came to her home looking for her son.  She also sued two police officers who responded to her telephone call but apparently did not do what she wanted.  Her first amended complaint was dismissed, and the time the court allowed her to file a second amended complaint expired.  Nevertheless, she filed an amended complaint and the surety and others moved to dismiss it.  The court found that the proposed second amended complaint was untimely but also considered it on its merits and held that it failed to state a claim.  As to the surety, the court found that based on the plaintiff’s own allegations the bail bond agents did not act under color of state law and, therefore, she failed to state a §1983 claim.
 
In re Application of Izevbizuaiyamu, Case No. W2012-17 (Tenn.Crim.App. December 10, 2012) affirmed the trial court’s denial of an application for a license to write bonds as the owner of a bail bond agency.  The Court reviewed testimony by the applicant and by a representative of the surety company with whom she proposed to contract.  The Court noted the applicant’s lack of candor and found grounds to suspect a connection between the applicant and another agent whose authority had been revoked.