City of Santa Clara v. Sandman

Filed 3/27/07 City of Santa Clara v. Sandman CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Sandman, Inc., et al. (Sandman) is a cement contractor which makes multiple cement deliveries within the City of Santa Clara (City) on a weekly basis. The City filed an action for an injunction to prohibit any discharge of cement waste by Sandman during concrete deliveries within the city limits. On April 11, 2003, the parties entered into a settlement which resulted in a stipulated judgment for permanent injunction. On March 24, 2004, the City obtained an order to show cause re: contempt. On March 25, 2005, the trial court entered a judgment holding that Sandman had violated the terms of the injunction. This appeal ensued.

The parties have now entered into a settlement which resolves the issues raised in the appeal. One of the conditions of settlement is that the parties jointly seek a reversal of the trial courts judgment.

The parties have filed a joint motion for stipulated reversal of the order re: judgment, holding Sandman in contempt. The reason that the parties seek a stipulated reversal, as outlined in the joint declaration in support of the motion for stipulated reversal, is that the original stipulated judgment is rife with ambiguities which the parties are seeking to clarify and correct. Both parties agree that the trial courts order is erroneous, and will ultimately be reversed if the appeal is pursued to its conclusion. A stipulated reversal, they contend, will promote judicial economy and will assist the parties by allowing them to eliminate the ambiguities in the original stipulated settlement, which they believe led to Sandmans violations of the injunction. Upon entry of the stipulated reversal, the parties intend to dismiss the contempt proceedings below and jointly petition the trial court for entry of a modified stipulated judgment that clarifies all of the ambiguities in the existing stipulated judgment.

The parties motion and joint declaration supports the conclusion that a stipulated reversal is appropriate under the facts of this case and the law. (See Code Civ. Proc.,  128, subd. (a)(8).) For the reasons stated in the joint declaration in support of the stipulation for reversal, including allowing the parties to resolve the ambiguities created in the original stipulated judgment, the court finds that there is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by the reversal.

This court further finds that the parties grounds for requesting reversal are reasonable. Those grounds outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment, and out weigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the incentive for pretrial settlement.

Disposition

The judgment is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. Each party to bear its own attorney fees and costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.

______________________________________

RUSHING, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________

PREMO, J.

____________________________________

ELIA, J.

Publication Courtesy of San Diego County Legal Resource Directory.

Analysis and review provided by El Cajon Property line attorney.