Byrd v. 6058 Riverside Blvd. Fee Owner CA3

Filed 10/29/26 Byrd v. 6058 Riverside Blvd. Fee Owner CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) TORIANO BYRD et al., C105932 Plaintiffs and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. 25CV005173) v. 6058 RIVERSIDE BLVD. FEE OWNER LLC et al., Defendants and Appellants. THE COURT: The parties have jointly applied for vacatur of the judgment in this matter based upon a joint stipulation that the judgment below was the result of various prejudicial errors. All parties agree that it is in the interest of justice for the court to vacate the judgment to allow for dismissal of the action with prejudice in furtherance of the settlement agreement of the parties. The court accepts the stipulation of the parties to vacate the judgment and remands the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. This court may reverse or modify a judgment pursuant to stipulation only in accordance with the requirements set forth in Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8). That section requires us to make specific findings that (1) “[t]here is 1 no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal,” and (2) the grounds “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.” (Ibid.; see In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 380-381.) We find that the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8) are satisfied here: The parties’ stipulation supports the conclusion that there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the vacatur of the judgment because the vacatur in accordance with the parties’ stipulation will result in a more expedited resolution of the issues; further, the grounds for requesting the modification of judgment outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment or the risk that a stipulated vacatur of the judgment in this case will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement in future cases of this nature. The judgment is vacated and the matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with the parties’ settlement agreement. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.278(a)(5).) BY THE COURT: /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. /s/ MAURO, J. /s/ MESIWALA, J. 2