California
Appeals
Standard of Review
Request For Continuance

 

Standard of Review-Request For Continuance-Marr. of Falcone & Fyke

III.             Discussion

A.     Denial of Kathey’s Request for Continuance of Contempt Hearing

Kathey argues that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing her request for a continuance of the contempt motion.  We detect no error. 

Continuances are granted only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring a continuance.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332; In re Marriage of Hoffmeister (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 1163, 1169.)  Reviewing courts must uphold a trial court’s choice not to grant a continuance unless the court has abused its discretion in so doing.  (Mahoney v. Southland Mental Health Associates Medical Group (1990) 223 Cal.App.3d 167, 170.)  In the present case, the contempt motion had been pending for over seven months.  The trial court found that Kathey had known for over a month that she might not have an attorney at the hearing but had waited until the day of the hearing to request the continuance, which was unfair to the other side.  Further, the trial court found that Kathey had been closely involved in drafting her moving papers, implying that Kathey had already exercised significant direct control over the litigation and that the request was a delaying tactic.  Indeed, Kathey had filed three other contempt motions without the assistance of counsel.  In short, Kathey did not show good cause for the continuance so that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying her request.

eBook Master Table of Contents   
Standard of Review-Table of Contents
Briefs-Legal Argument-Table of Contents