Wisniewski

Plaintiffs, William F. and William M. Wisniewski, appeal from a minute order, made and filed on November 7, 1973, directing them to pay fees of the attorneys for defendant, James H. Clary, 1 in the sum of $300 as sanctions for the failure of plaintiffs to *502 attend personally a mandatory settlement conference on October 4, 1973, as allegedly required by written local policy on pain of the dismissal otherwise of their action. Plaintiffs paid the $300 and then appealed the order on the grounds that the policy and the order pursuant thereto exceeded the powers of the court and under the circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion.

The threshold question posed is whether the challenged order is appealable under the foregoing circumstances. It is not an order made expressly appealable by Code of Civil Procedure, section 904.1. 2 But it is a final order on a collateral matter directing the payment of money within 30 days and, as such, it is appealable (see Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Calif. etc. Co., 159 Cal. 484, 491 [ 114 P. 838 ]; Stockton v. Rattner, 22 Cal.App.3d 965, 968 [ 99 Cal.Rptr. 787 ]) unless the claimed voluntary nature of plaintiffs’ payment to defendant of…

I concur on the ground that the written statement of Los Angeles Superior Court policy does not authorize sanctions by way of attorney’s fees for the failure of plaintiffs to appear at the settlement conference.

COBEY, Acting P.J.

Plaintiffs, William F. and William M. Wisniewski, appeal from a minute order, made and filed on November 7, 1973, directing them to pay fees of the attorneys for defendant, James H. Clary, [1] in the sum of $300 as sanctions for the failure of plaintiffs to attend personally a mandatory settlement conference on October 4, 1973, as allegedly required by written local policy on pain of the dismissal otherwise of their action. Plaintiffs paid the $300 and then appealed the order on the grounds that the policy and the order pursuant thereto exceeded the powers of the court and under the circumstances constituted an abuse of discretion.

(1a) The threshold question posed is whether the challenged order is appealable under the foregoing circumstances. It is not an order made expressly appealable by Code of Civil Procedure, section 904.1. [2] But it is a final order on a collateral matter directing the payment of money within 30 days and, as such, it is appealable (see Title Ins. & Trust Co. v. Calif. etc. Co., 159 Cal. 484, 491 [ 114 P. 838 ]; Stockton v. Rattner, 22 Cal. App.3d 965, 968 [ 99 Cal. Rptr. 787 ]) unless the claimed voluntary nature of…