Panesar

Panesar v. Panesar CA4/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 9, 2013D060842California729 words

Opinion

Opinion

Mcintyre, J.

DISCUSSION

Before the court may accept and confirm the stipulated reversal or vacation of a

judgment, it must find both of the following: (1) "There is no reasonable possibility

that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal";

and (2) "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."

(§ 128, subd. (a)(8).) We make this factual determination based on the papers

submitted by the parties and our own review of the record. (Hardisty v. Hinton &

Alfert (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 999, 1007.)

After examining the appellate record and the stipulation for reversal of the

judgment, we conclude there is no reasonable possibility that the interests of

nonparties will be adversely affected by the proposed reversal. (§ 128, subd.

2 (a)(8)(A).) This is a private dispute between individuals concerning two parcels of

real property, two vehicles and other household items. Although there is a remote

possibility that Pritpal's mother may have an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.