Opinion
D042337.
10-29-2003
VANESSA SANZARO et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. SHADOWHILL INVESTMENT, LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants.
The parties have stipulated that the judgment be reversed and vacated, the action in the trial court be dismissed with prejudice, and the parties bear their own costs and attorney fees.
In Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273, 284, the Supreme Court held that "when the parties to an action agree to settle their dispute and as part of their settlement stipulate to a reversal of the trial court judgment, the Court of Appeal should grant their request for the stipulated reversal absent a showing of extraordinary circumstances that warrant an exception to this general rule . Any determination that such circumstances exist must be made on a case- by-case basis."
Effective January 1, 2000, the Legislature modified the appellate courts power to accept a stipulated reversal. Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) provides that before the court may accept and confirm the stipulated reversal or vacation of a judgment it must find: "(A) There is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal;" and "(B) The reasons of the parties for requesting reversal outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment and the risk that the availability of stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement." (Stats. 1999, ch. 508, § 1, pp. 2795-2796.)
Here, the parties jointly request a stipulated reversal of the judgment to facilitate their settlement of the case. Defendant Shadowhill Investment, LLC (Shadowhill) owns a shopping center in Vista and plaintiff Vanessa Sanzaro (Sanzaro) leased space in the center from Shadowhill to operate a restaurant. Plaintiffs Michael and Deborah Sanzaro were guarantors of Sanzaros obligations under the lease.
The recitation of facts in this opinion is largely based on the factual background set forth in Shadowhills counsels September 15, 2003 letter requesting the stipulated reversal.
The agreement stated Sanzaros work on the property would be completed by January 1, 2001 and the lease term would begin on the date she opened for business or January 1, 2001, whichever was earlier. The lease agreement provided for six months of free rent beginning January 1, 2001, and contemplated that Sanzaro would begin remodeling the premises before the church that was temporarily occupying them moved out. However, when Sanzaro applied to the City of Vista (the City) for a permit to begin the remodeling work, she learned that Shadowhill had agreed to a condition with the City that the City interpreted as precluding her from doing any work on the premises before the church moved out.
The church did not leave the property until March 31, 2001. Consequently, Shadowhill agreed that the free rent period would run from April 1, 2001 through September 30, 2001. As of December 2001, however, Sanzaro still had not paid any rent. Shadowhill informed her she owed $11,747.09, consisting of three months rent and some common area maintenance charges. Sanzaro and her guarantors responded by suing Shadowhill and its manager Sheng-Teh Hsieh, and the case went to trial on causes of action for intentional misrepresentation and concealment. The jury found for plaintiffs on both theories and awarded them damages of $11,747.09, the amount of unpaid rent Shadowhill claimed Sanzaro owed it for the last three months of 2001.
Sheng-Teh Hsieh is also an appellant.
We agree with counsel that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) are satisfied here. As Shadowhills counsel states, this case is a "garden variety landlord-tenant dispute." There is no reasonable possibility the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by a stipulated reversal, and there is no reasonable basis to conclude the private settlement and reversal of the judgment would erode the public trust or reduce incentive for pretrial settlement. The stipulated reversal is proper under Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. The superior court is directed to vacate the judgment and dismiss the action with prejudice. The remittitur is to issue immediately. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, J. and HALLER, J.