Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District  

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

This case arises from a vehicle versus pedestrian accident.  Plaintiff Anna Hogan was accidentally struck by a valet driver, Defendant Edelmira Rosario Hochen Mazarielos, while she was walking in a cross walk.  Mazarielos was employed by Defendant Golden Bull Hospitality LP.  Plaintiff claims that Mazarielos was driving negligently.   

This hearing is on Defendants’ motion to continue trial.  Defendants seek a three-month continuance from June 23, 2025 to September 22, 2025.  Defendants claim a continuance is warranted because (1) they only recently discovered that Plaintiff is claiming the accident caused her to discontinue her medical studies even though Plaintiff’s counsel had previously confirmed this would not be part of Plaintiff’s claim, and (2) “the fires which ravaged L.A. County in January 2025 have caused delays in discovery as parties had to relocate and deal with emergency situations.”  There has been no prior trial continuance in this case.     

LEGAL STANDARD 

Trial dates are firm to ensure prompt disposition of civil cases. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (a).)  Continuances are thus generally disfavored.  (See id., rule 3.1332, subd. (b).)  Nevertheless, the trial court has discretion to continue trial dates.  (Hernandez v. Superior Court (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1242, 1246.)  Each request for continuance must be considered on its own merits and is granted upon an affirmative showing of good cause.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c); Hernandez, supra, 115 Cal.App.4th at p. 1246.)   

Circumstances that may indicate good cause include: (1) the unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (2) the unavailability of a party due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (3) the unavailability of trial counsel due to death, illness, or other excusable circumstances; (4) the substitution of trial counsel where there is an affirmative showing that the substitution is required in the interests of justice; (5) the addition of a new party if (A) the new party has not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial, or (B) the other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery and prepare for trial in regard to the new party’s involvement in the case; (6) a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or (7) a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for trial.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332, subd. (c).)  

The court must also consider such relevant factors as: (1) the proximity of the trial date; (2) whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial caused by any party; (3) the length of the continuance requested; (4) the availability of alternative means to address the problem that gave rise to the motion or application for a continuance; (5) the prejudice that parties or witnesses will suffer as a result of the continuance; (6) if the case is entitled to a preferential trial setting, the reasons for that status and whether the need for a continuance outweighs the need to avoid delay; (7) the court’s calendar and the impact of granting a continuance on other pending trials; (8) whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; (9) whether all parties have stipulated to a continuance; (10) whether the interests of justice are best served by a continuance, by the trial of the matter, or by imposing conditions on the continuance; and (11) any other fact or circumstance relevant to the fair determination of the motion or application.  (Id., rule 3.1332, subd. (d).) 

DISCUSSION 

The Court concludes that a three-month continuance is not warranted.  Defendants claim they need additional time to conduct discovery on Plaintiff’s newly revived claim that she discontinued her medical studies because of the accident.  Plaintiff, however, maintains that she has agreed she will not argue that the accident caused her to stop her medical studies.  Accordingly, there is no need to continue trial to seek discovery on this claim.  As to vague allusions about purported delays in discovery caused by the January 2025 fires, Defendants never identify what discovery they would need or why it could not be completed by the current discovery deadline.    

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Defendants’ motion to continue trial.    

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: May 15, 2025 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Co