Bartoumian v. Chin CA2/5

Filed 11/22/23 Bartoumian v. Chin CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

HAGOP BARTOUMIAN, B324106

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 19AVCV00848) v.

TERRY L.C. CHIN, et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Stephen T. Morgan, Judge. Affirmed. Hagop Bartoumian in pro. per. for Plaintiff and Appellant. No appearance by Respondents.

___________________________

Hagop Bartoumian appeals from the denial of his motion to set aside the dismissal of his personal injury action due to his attorney’s mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or neglect. (Code Civ. Proc., § 473, subd. (b).)1 We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, Bartoumian filed a personal injury action against Terry L.C. Chin, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Los Angeles, and the State of California for an alleged motor vehicle accident occurring on October 12, 2018.2 When the parties failed to appear for a final status conference, the trial court issued an order to show cause regarding dismissal and set a hearing for January 29, 2021. That day, when Bartoumian and the defendants failed to appear, the court dismissed the entire action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. On June 23, 2022, approximately 17 months after the order of dismissal was entered, Bartoumian filed a motion to set aside the dismissal under section 473. In a declaration in support of the motion, Bartoumian’s attorney explained he moved his office to a new location in October 2020 and neglected to inform the court of his new address. Although, he submitted a change of address with the postal service, he never received the court’s January 20, 2021 order to show cause regarding dismissal and thus failed to appear at the hearing. He did not provide the date he learned of the dismissal or how he learned of it.