Opinion ID: 1348839
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Applying the presumption favoring stipulated reversal to this case

Text: The facts of this case point to only one reasonable result  granting the stipulated reversal. Even in the absence of the general presumption favoring this procedure, the factors we have discussed above would lead to the same conclusion: (1) a postjudgment settlement will conserve substantial resources of the parties and the courts; (2) the parties will be given the paramount consideration to which they are entitled and will be treated fairly; (3) the integrity of the judicial process will be maintained, indeed enhanced by facilitating an efficient and fair settlement; and (4) the public interest will be served by a savings of approximately $4 million. Conversely, the record reflects no extraordinary circumstances that weigh against allowing the stipulated reversal. We reject as being insubstantial the notion that the stipulated reversal must be denied on the ground that the public has an interest in having the trial court judgment, which has not been subjected to appellate review, serve as a commentary on the performance of public officials. It has already served that function. The stipulated reversal would merely be a reminder that the commentary did not face appellate review. Moreover, the interest in commentary pales in comparison to the direct interest in saving $4 million. We think it fanciful to embrace the assumption that the public is willing to pay $4 million for a commentary. The average taxpayer wants and deserves more for his or her money. Moreover, thwarting the settlement would be needlessly unfair to the parties. They would be denied a settlement on the terms they desire even though no substantial competing interest is apparent. Indeed, they would be punished for not being prescient. When this case was in the pretrial stage, there was no extant decision by this court and very little Court of Appeal authority one way or the other. (The Court of Appeal in this case noted the dearth of helpful case law.) On the other hand, the Courts of Appeal had routinely been allowing the type of settlements fashioned by the parties, e.g., stipulated reversals and the like. Even if a rule precluding stipulated reversals had some merit for future cases (a conclusion we reject), we would be unfair at this late stage to impose a prophylactic rule retroactively. Doing so would achieve nothing but unfairness to the parties, with no countervailing benefits.