Carter v. Hunt Club Community Assn. Carter v. Hunt Club Community Assn.
Filed
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
WAYNE CARTER, as Trustee, etc., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HUNT CLUB COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION et al., Defendants and Respondents. | G036429 (Super. Ct. No. 05CC06294) O P I N I O N |
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Randell L. Wilkinson, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8).
Lawrence A. Witsoe; Epsten Grinnell & Howell, Steven L. Banks; Law Office of Luis E. Ventura and Luis E. Ventura for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Klinedinst, Neil R. Gunny; Feldsott & Lee and Martin L. Lee for Defendants and Respondents.
* * *
THE COURT:*
The parties have stipulated that a judgment granting attorney fees to the prevailing party in an anti-SLAPP action be dismissed in order to facilitate a settlement. This appeal is a companion to our appeal in G036053, which involves the same settlement.
We accept the stipulation pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 128, subdivision (a)(8)[1], and grant their request for a stipulated reversal. (Union Bank of California v. Braille Inst. of America, Inc. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324, 1328; In re Rashad H. (2000) 78 Cal.App.4th 376, 381.)
I
Plaintiff owned a vacant lot within a planned community in San Juan Capistrano. He submitted architectural plans for a house to the association's architectural committee and board of directors. The plans were rejected, and the parties were unable to resolve their dispute. Plaintiff sued the association and related entities for negligence and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage.
Defendants prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion. (Code Civ. Proc., § 425.16.) Some months later, the trial court awarded attorney fees to defendants and against plaintiff of $12,978 in fees and $1,028 in costs. Plaintiff takes the instant appeal from the order granting attorney fees.
While the anti-SLAPP motion and fee award were pending on appeal, the parties reached a settlement. The parties have not informed us of the terms of the settlement, but it apparently resolves the existing dispute regarding the association's alleged wrongful denial of the plans. The parties' joint request states, â€
