Barton v. Ahmanson Developments, Inc.

[1360]

Opinion

VOGEL (C. S.), 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 sanction we affirm.

I

Appealability of Discovery Sanction

“Generally speaking, under the one final judgment rule, interlocutory or interim orders are not appealable, but are only ‘reviewable on appeal’ from the final judgment. ‘The theory behind the rule is that piecemeal disposition and multiple appeals in a single action are oppressive and costly, and review of intermediate rulings should await the final disposition of the case.’ ”

(Rao

v.

Campo

(1991) 233 Cal.App.3d 1557, 1565 [285 Cal.Rptr. 691].) An exception has been recognized for a

final