Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 24PSCV00064, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24PSCV00064    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Hector Herrera-Bernardo v. Maria Luisa Mendez 

Ara E. Aznavuryan’s Motion to be Relieved as Counsel for Plaintiff Hector Herrera-Bernardo 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court summarily DENIES Ara E. Aznavuryan’s motion to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hector Herrera-Bernardo without prejudice. 

            Counsel is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order. 

BACKGROUND 

This is a personal injury action. On January 8, 2024, plaintiff Hector Herrera-Bernardo (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant Maria Luisa Mendez (Defendant) and Does 1 to 30, alleging causes of action for motor vehicle and general negligence. 

On April 3, 2025, Ara E. Aznavuryan moved to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff Hector Herrera-Bernardo. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

The Court has discretion to allow an attorney to withdraw, and such a motion should be granted, provided that there is no prejudice to the client, and it does not disrupt the orderly process of justice. (See Ramirez v. Sturdevant (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 904, 915; People v. Prince (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 398, 403-407.)

A motion to be relieved as counsel must be made on Judicial Council Form MC-051 (Notice of Motion and Motion), MC-052 (Declaration), and MC-053 (Proposed Order). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subds. (a), (c), (e).) The requisite forms must be served “on the client and on all parties that have appeared in the case.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1362, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

            Ara E. Aznavuryan of Law Offices of Ara E. Aznavuryan (Counsel) seeks to be relieved as counsel for Plaintiff. But, Counsel’s motion is untimely. The deadline for both electronic service and mail service of this motion was March 28, 2025. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1005, subd. (b), 1010.6, subd. (a)(3)(B), 1013, subd. (a).) Counsel served the moving papers on April 1, 2025, and filed the moving papers with the Court on April 3 2025. (MC-051, pp. 3-5 of pdf.) The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider an improperly noticed motion. (See Harris v. Board of Ed. of City and County of San Francisco (1957) 152 Cal.App.2d 677, 680 [“where the trial court lacks jurisdiction to make the order, as in a situation where requisite notice has not been given to the plaintiff, it may be vacated by that court at any time thereafter”]; Svistunoff v. Svistunoff (1952) 108 Cal.App.2d 638, 641 [“A sufficient notice of the hearing not having been given, the order was void”].)

The Court therefore summarily DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

            Even if the Court were to consider the motion, the Court would also note that the proposed order indicates Plaintiff’s address being his last known address, but Counsel’s declaration indicates that the address is Plaintiff’s current address. (Aznavuryan Decl., ¶ 3, subd. (b); Proposed Order, ¶ 6.) This needs to be corrected. 

            Based on the foregoing, the Court summarily DENIES the motion without prejudice.