Of interest regarding continuances and extensions, on March 18, 2008 the California Superior Court for Riverside County (near Los Angeles) issued a notice stating that, effective March 24, 2008, it would no longer accept “notices of unavailability” also known as Tenderloin notices. In support of this action it cited the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Carl v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal. App. 4th 73.
In Carl, the Court stated: “It has apparently become common practice in the trial courts for litigants to file a “notice of unavailability” under the guise of Tenderloin Housing Clinic, Inc. v. Sparks. . . The notice purports to advise the other parties to the action — as well as the court — that the deliverer will not be available for a prescribed period of time and that no action may be taken during that period which adversely affects the unavailable party.” Carl, at 74-75. The CarlCourt rejected the notion that the Petitioners could “unilaterally call a litigation timeout” and pointed out that there exist procedures for obtaining continuances and extensions when the need arises.
Continuances and Extensions – Be Sure to Check Local Requirements
Do not assume that a declaration setting forth the circumstances that necessitate a continuance are sufficient cause for the court to grant it. Many jurisdictions impose additional requirements, a few are set forth below.
California Superior Courts require that an application for an order extending time must disclose in writing the nature of the case and what extensions, if any, have previously been granted by order of court or stipulation of counsel. See California Rule of Court 2.20. Additionally, the California Superior Courts set forth very particular requirements for granting continuances of trials. See California Rule of Court 3.1332.
Regarding extensions, many jurisdictions require that the extension be sought before the expiration of the deadline or hearing date. See New York CPLR 2004, Cook County Circuit Court Motion Judges Rule 6.5.
With respect to discovery, most jurisdictions permit the parties to agree to extensions, but require a court order if an extension will prevent discovery from being completed by the deadline set by the court. See FRCP 29, New York Supreme Court Commercial Div. R. 13(a).
No Need to Panic, SmartRules Has the Answers
For up to date and detailed information regarding extensions and continuances, consult the SmartRules™ procedural guides Motion for Extension and Motion for Continuance for the jurisdiction in which you need to obtain a continuance or extension.
Clarification Re New Federal Rule of Evidence 502
We want to thank our customer Bob Ryan for brining to our attention confusing language from the last SmartRules™ update regarding new Federal Rule of Evidence 502. The new rule has been adopted by the United States Senate only (not by both Congressional houses as the language of our update implied). New Federal Rule of Evidence 502 is not yet effective. We will continue to keep you updated with the latest information available.
Write to Us
We would love to hear if there is a topic of interest to you for treatment in our Tips and Tricks series. If so, please send an email to editors@smartrules.com. If you would like to subscribe to Tips and Tricks, just send an email with “subscribe” in the subject line.
Thank you for using SmartRules!
Popularity: 48% [?]