Bradley moved under CCP 473(d) to void the dismissal of its cross-complaint on the ground that the dismissal was entered under a settlement that Bradley’s attorney had entered into without Bradley’s consent.  Recognizing a split of appellate authority over whether a judgment on a settlement entered into without client consent is void or merely voidable and suggesting that voidable is the proper answer, this decision ducks the question, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief because Bradley remained silent in the face of its knowledge of the settlement and the accompanying dismissal, thus ratifying the attorney’s otherwise unauthorized settlement.