Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Toriano Byrd and the other plaintiffs sued 6058 Riverside Blvd. Fee Owner LLC and related defendants in Sacramento County Superior Court, and the case proceeded to judgment. After that judgment, all parties jointly asked the Court of Appeal to vacate it. Their joint stipulation said the judgment below resulted from various prejudicial errors and that all parties agreed it was in the interest of justice to vacate the judgment so the action could be dismissed with prejudice in furtherance of their settlement agreement.
The Court of Appeal explained that it may reverse or modify a judgment on stipulation only if the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8), are met. That statute requires specific findings that there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal, and that the grounds for requesting reversal outweigh both the erosion of public trust from nullifying a judgment and the risk that stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.
The court is the Third Appellate District, sitting in Sacramento. The opinion is not certified for publication, so California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a) limits citation and reliance on it except as that rule permits.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal accepted the parties' stipulation and vacated the judgment. It held that section 128(a)(8) was satisfied because the stipulation supported the conclusion that vacatur would not reasonably harm nonparties or the public; instead, vacatur in accordance with the stipulation would produce a more expedited resolution of the issues.
The court also held that the grounds for requesting modification of the judgment outweighed both countervailing concerns identified by the statute: the erosion of public trust that may result from nullifying a judgment, and the risk that a stipulated vacatur in this case would reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement in future cases of this nature.
The operative disposition is that the judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties' settlement agreement, with the stated purpose of allowing dismissal of the action with prejudice. Each party is to bear its own costs on appeal under California Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).
Key Takeaways
- A California appellate court cannot vacate a judgment merely because the parties ask it to; stipulated reversal must satisfy the specific findings in Code of Civil Procedure section 128(a)(8).
- The court must find no reasonable possibility that nonparties or the public will be adversely affected, and it must weigh the reasons for reversal against both public-trust erosion and the chilling effect on future pretrial settlements.
- Here, the joint stipulation and settlement supplied the necessary support, and the court emphasized that vacatur would lead to a more expedited resolution rather than harm outside interests.
- The proper result was vacatur plus remand for proceedings consistent with the settlement, enabling dismissal with prejudice; the appellate court did not itself enter the dismissal.
- The parties bear their own appellate costs, as the order expressly directs under rule 8.278(a)(5).
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the narrow but real path for stipulated vacatur in California civil appeals: parties may obtain reversal to effectuate a settlement, but only after the appellate court makes the statutory no-harm and balancing findings on the record. It also shows that the appellate remedy is vacatur and remand, leaving the trial court to implement the settlement through dismissal with prejudice.
Because the opinion is unpublished, its practical significance is limited by rule 8.1115, but it remains a concrete application of section 128(a)(8) to a settlement-driven appeal in a real-estate-related dispute.