Barton

Barton v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc.

Good Law
17 Cal. App. 4th 1358·1993 Cal. App. LEXIS 850·22 Cal. Rptr. 2d 56·93 Daily Journal DAR 10669·93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6210
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 17, 1993B063066California1,009 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

The underlying action was brought by plaintiff Diane Barton against defendant and respondent Ahmanson Developments, Inc., and others for breach of contract. Appellant Vin A. Fichter, an attorney, formerly represented Barton in the lawsuit. During the time appellant was counsel of record, the trial court imposed a $2,850 sanction against Barton and appellant for discovery abuse. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2023, 2033.) Appellant filed a motion for reconsideration on behalf of himself and Barton. Shortly thereafter, Barton substituted another attorney in place of appellant. The trial court denied the then pending motion for reconsideration. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, solely on his own behalf, from the order imposing sanctions and the order denying reconsideration.

Ordinarily, an order imposing sanctions under discovery statutes is not immediately appealable. It may be reviewed only by extraordinary writ or on appeal from the subsequent final judgment in the underlying case. We hold the discovery sanction order in this case is appealable, however, because it is final as to appellant, who is no longer involved in the underlying suit. On the merits of the discovery…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.