Elnaggar v. Elmohtaseb CA4/3
Badria Elnaggar and Eman Elamin appeal from an order, issued in 2017, denying their motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (d), to vacate a judgment entered in 2010. They contended the judgment was void because it did not match the verdict rendered in their 2010 jury trial and because their counsel had entered into an unauthorized stipulation with the court and opposing counsel regarding a response to a note the jury had sent to the court during deliberations.
We affirm the order. Appellants have misunderstood the difference between a verdict and a judgment. The judgment as entered took into account the section 998 offers to compromise extended on behalf of the respondent, Suhaila Elmohtaseb, before the 2010 trial. The jury had no responsibility to consider these offers. As for the stipulation, appellants’ counsel had the authority to enter into it without their consent, so even if he failed to obtain consent, his failure does not render the judgm
Comments on Elnaggar v. Elmohtaseb CA4/3