Ratto v. Son
Good fences may make good neighbors, but retaining walls do not, at least when they are constructed in a location that does not conform to the common property line. In these consolidated appeals, we consider various procedural issues arising after the entry of a stipulated judgment in favor of plaintiff Louis Ratto against defendant Ki O. Son. Ratto contends: (1) the trial court erred when it set aside the stipulated judgment for the limited purpose of allowing Son to file a cross-complaint; (2) the trial court should have awarded Ratto attorneys fees as a prevailing party on a motion to enforce the settlement agreement underlying the judgment; (3) the court erred when it ordered Ratto to file an acknowledgment of satisfaction of judgment after the monetary portion of the judgment had been paid, but before the injunctive relief provided for had been accomplished; and (4) the court should have granted a motion to strike Sons third amended cross complaint as a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) under Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16. Court agree with the first two contentions.
Comments on Ratto v. Son