You Gotta Read On To See What Happens.
This one started out badly for attorney. A trial judge imposed three types of awards against plaintiff”s attorney: (1) a $2,035 award for partial discovery referee expenses; (2) a $2,335 award for plaintiff’s deposition nonappearance; and (3) a CCP § 177.5 award of $1,500 for failing to comply with the two prior orders. However, attorney appealed these awards in Fletcher v. Bantan, Case No. B222418 (2d Dist., Div 7 Apr. 19 , 2011) (unpublished).
Things seemed to be going better for attorney, because the appellate court determined that (1) the discovery referee order against him was erroneous because CCP § 645.1 only orders these costs to be paid by parties (not their counsel); and (2) the discovery referee was assigned without adequate due process.
However, the real rub was that the discovery referee order was only voidable, not void in nature. Earlier, the appellate court had dismissed appeals of these orders as time-barred, an order holding up because these orders were not void.
The § 177.5 order was no abuse of discretion and the lower court had jurisidiction to impose further orders even though attorney substituted out.
The voidability versus void distinction came home to roost in this one.
