Filed 5/31/24 Bay View Community DE v. Marina Coast Water District 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

BAY VIEW COMMUNITY DE, LLC, et 

al.,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

MARINA COAST WATER DISTRICT, 

et. al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

 H050456

 (Monterey County

 Super. Ct. No. 18CV000765)

THE COURT1

In a dispute between appellants Marina Coast Water District and Board of 

Directors of Marina Coast Water District (collectively the District) and respondents Bay 

View Community DE, LLC, Bryan Taylor, Greg Carter, Brooke Bilyeu, Francis Perez, 

Theresa Perez, Rosie Telles, and Chris Manuel (collectively Bay View), over the 

provision and cost of water services to a mobile home park the trial court entered a final 

judgment granting declaratory relief and Bay View’s petition for writ of mandate 

following a three-phase trial. After the District noticed the instant appeal, the parties 

agreed to settle their dispute. Pursuant to their settlement agreement, the parties jointly 

moved for summary reversal of the judgment, to the extent the trial court determined that 

the District owned, and was responsible for maintaining, a specified water delivery 

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Bamattre-Manoukian, J. and Danner, J.
2

system. We grant the motion and reverse the judgment pursuant to the stipulation of the 

parties.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

After the record was filed in the instant appeal, but before briefing commenced, 

the parties filed a joint request to stay the appeal pending settlement discussions, which 

this court granted. The parties filed a notice of settlement in November 2023, followed 

by the motion for stipulated reversal of the September 2022 judgment. The parties

agreed that Bay View, not the District, owns the subject water delivery system and is 

responsible for its maintenance. To effectuate this agreement, the parties request that we 

reverse that portion of the judgment which found that the District owns the system. 

II. DISCUSSION

In their joint motion, the parties request that we summarily reverse paragraph 4 of 

the final judgment. The reason that the parties seek a summary reversal, as outlined in 

the request and stipulation for reversal, is that the parties have resolved their dispute in its 

entirety and agree that the reversal of paragraph 4 of the final judgment is necessary to 

effectuate their agreement, and that further briefing or argument in this appeal would be 

unnecessary based on their settlement. 

The parties’ joint motion supports the conclusion that a summary reversal pursuant 

to stipulation 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 motion, the court finds that there 

is no possibility that the interests of nonparties or the public will be adversely affected by 

the reversal. Summary reversal of the judgment will place the parties in the same 

position they would be in if the appeal were successfully prosecuted to completion, and 

will save both private and judicial resources because it will obviate the need for 

additional briefing by the parties and review of the record by this court. The public 

interest is served by a speedy resolution of this appeal because it will conserve judicial 

resources.
3

This court further finds that the parties’ grounds for requesting reversal are 

reasonable. The parties both correctly recognize that the reversal of the judgment as set 

forth in the joint motion resolves the remaining issues in the appeal. These grounds 

outweigh the erosion of public trust that may result from the nullification of a judgment 

and outweigh the risk that the availability of a stipulated reversal will reduce the 

incentive for pretrial settlement. Public trust in the courts is enhanced, not eroded, when 

parties agree that further litigation is unnecessary. (See Union Bank of Cal. v. Braille 

Inst. of Am. (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1324.)

III. DISPOSITION

The September 21, 2022 nunc pro tunc final judgment granting declaratory relief 

and petition for writ of mandate is reversed pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The 

parties shall bear their own costs on appeal. The remittitur shall issue forthwith.