1Dear [FIRSTNAME], The topic of the newsletter this week is a brief discussion regarding the filing of a motion for

a continuance of the trial date in the State of California. The issue of the newsletter next week will be arriving a few days later than usual as I am getting married this coming weekend and will be going on a short honeymoon afterwards. Now to the topic of this issue. As there are many separate grounds for requesting a continuance of trial in California this post will give a general outline only. California Rule of Court 3.1332, formerly Rule 375, governs requests for a continuance of trial and states in pertinent part that, (a) Trial dates are firm. To ensure the prompt disposition of civil cases, the dates assigned for a trial are firm. All parties and their counsel must regard the date set for trial as certain. Click below to view the full text of Rule 3.1332 http://www.courts.ca.gov/cms/rules/index.cfm?title=three&linkid=rule3_1332 However Rule 3. 1332 also allows a motion for a continuance of trial to be filed, either by exparte application, or by a noticed motion. It cannot be stress enough that a motion for a continuance should be filed, with all supporting declarations containing competent evidence, as soon as the need for a continuance becomes apparent. Many judges take a dim view of attorneys or litigants who wait an unreasonable period of time before requesting a continuance. And the rule is that the judge has great discretion in denying or granting a request for a continuance. However, while the trial court has great discretion in ruling on a motion for continuance, if a continuance is denied and the result is a denial of a fair hearing, at least two decisions of the California Courts of Appeal have stated that the discretion is abused when the lack of a continuance results in a denial of a fair hearing. Trial court's discretion in ruling on motions for continuance is abused where lack of continuance results in denial of fair hearing. Rankin v. Curtis (1986) 183 Cal. App.3d 939, 947. See also Rebney v. Wells Fargo Bank (1990) 220 Cal.App 3d 1117, 1141. And a California Court of Appeal has ruled that the strong public policy favoring disposition of cases on the merits outweighs other policies such as the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act. Judges are faced with opposing responsibilities when continuances are sought. On the one hand, they are mandated by the Trial Court Delay Reduction Act to actively assume and maintain control over the pace On the other hand, they must abide by the guiding principle of deciding

cases on their merits rather than on procedural deficiencies. Such decisions must be made in an atmosphere of substantial justice. When the two policies collide head-on, the strong public policy favoring disposition on the merits outweighs the competing policy favoring judicial efficiency. Oliveros v. County of Los Angeles (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1389, 1395 (internal citations omitted.). Unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances under normal circumstances should qualify as good cause pursuant to CRC 3.1332(c)(3). Hernandez v. Sup.Ct. (Neal) (2004) 115 Cal. App.4th 1242, 1247-1248. Any party contemplating requesting a continuance of a trial date should review the annotated versions of all the relevant statutes and rules such as California Rule of Court 3.1332 and legal treatises such as The Rutter Group, Civil Procedure Before Trial so that their request has the best chance of being accepted. As mentioned earlier, failing to do so, and in particular, waiting too long to request a continuance will likely result in the request for a continuance being denied. If you enjoy this newsletter, tell others about it. They can subscribe by visiting the following link: http://www.legaldocspro.net/newsletter.htm Have a great week and thanks for being a subscriber. Yours Truly, Stan Burman The author of this newsletter, Stan Burman, is a freelance paralegal who has worked in California litigation since 1995. Any persons representing themselves should be aware that the author does NOT work directly with the public. The author's website: http://www.legaldocspro.net THE AUTHOR NOW SELLS SAMPLE CALIFORNIA LEGAL DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS AT A HUGE DISCOUNT. CLICK BELOW TO VIEW THE DOCUMENT COLLECTIONS, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS INDIVIDUAL SAMPLE DOCUMENTS SOLD BY THE AUTHOR: http://www.scribd.com/legaldocspro Copyright 2012 Stan Burman. All rights reserved. DISCLAIMER: Please note that the author of this newsletter, Stan Burman is NOT an attorney and as such is unable to provide any specific legal advice. The author is NOT engaged in providing any legal, financial, or other professional services, and any information contained in this newsletter is NOT

intended to constitute legal advice. These materials and information contained in this newsletter have been prepared by Stan Burman for informational purposes only and are not legal advice. Transmission of the information contained in this newsletter is not intended to create, and receipt does not constitute, any business relationship between the sender and receiver. Subscribers and any other readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.