|
p0344 Based on the finding that vacating an existing judgment could prevent the public from learning about defendant's bad acts and could affect defendant's licensing and insurance, the Court of Appeal refused to vacate the judgment even though a settlement agreement required plaintiff to consent to vacating it, but since plaintiff had already received settlement proceeds, the court dismissed the appeal as moot.CitationMUCCIANTI v WILLOW CREEK (Stipulated Vacation) 108 CA4 13 [See: CCP 128; Neary v Regents 3 C4 273, T/AT 10/92; In re Rashad H 78 CA4 376; Union Bank v Braille Inst 92 CA4 1324]
|
|
