Praszker

and defendants Roman Praszker (Praszker) and West & Praszker Realtors, Inc. (West & Praszker) have filed a joint application for stipulated reversal of a judgment against the defendants as part of a settlement of the above action, which is now pending on appeal in this court.

For the reasons explained below, we will grant the request as to West & Praszker, but under the “extraordinary circumstances” exception to the rule pronounced in Neary v. Regents of the University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 859 , 834 P.2d 119 ], we will deny the request as to defendant Roman Praszker.

*1817 Background

The judgment the parties now seek to have reversed was entered after the case was remanded to the superior court for reasons set forth by this court in Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal.App.3d 35 [ 269 Cal.Rptr. 228 ] (Krug).

In that opinion we affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Krug but remanded to the superior court to make new findings and an apportionment of Krug’s damages based on his own comparative negligence. (Krug, supra, 220 Cal.App.3d at p. 45 .) On remand, the superior court issued an…

—When it legitimated the practice of stipulated reversal in Neary v. Regents of University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 859 , 834 P.2d 119 ] our Supreme Court rejected the prevailing federal view that the judicial system ought not allow the judgment of a court, “created at cost to the public and other litigants, to be a bargaining chip in the process of settlement.” (Matter of Memorial Hosp. of Iowa County, Inc. (7th Cir. 1988) 862 F.2d 1299 , 1302.) 1 Neary did not merely authorize stipulated reversal in appropriate circumstances, as the parties in *1826 that case had requested, but created a blanket presumption in its favor, which they did not seek. (See Barnett, Making Decisions Disappear, supra, 26 Loyola L.A. L.Rev. 1031, 1061.) That presumption is destined to plague the appellate courts of this state.

According to the Supreme Court, a strong presumption in favor of stipulated reversal relieves the parties of “the burden of showing that their stipulation should be granted because no countervailing factors are present, e.g., a contrary public interest.” (Neary, supra, 3 Cal.4th at p. 284 .) Because the parties do not have to submit “supporting…

Plaintiff Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. (Krug) and defendants Roman Praszker (Praszker) and West & Praszker Realtors, Inc. (West & Praszker) have filed a joint application for stipulated reversal of a judgment against the defendants as part of a settlement of the above action, which is now pending on appeal in this court.

For the reasons explained below, we will grant the request as to West & Praszker, but under the "extraordinary circumstances" exception to the rule pronounced in Neary v. Regents of the University of California (1992) 3 Cal.4th 273 [ 10 Cal. Rptr.2d 859 , 834 P.2d 119 ], we will deny the request as to defendant Roman Praszker.

The judgment the parties now seek to have reversed was entered after the case was remanded to the superior court for reasons set forth by this court in Norman I. Krug Real Estate Investments, Inc. v. Praszker (1990) 220 Cal. App.3d 35 [ 269 Cal. Rptr. 228 ] ( Krug ).

In that opinion we affirmed the judgment of the trial court in favor of Krug but remanded to the superior court to make new findings and an apportionment of Krug's damages based on his own comparative negligence. ( Krug, supra, 220 Cal.…