Rule 34.Continuances and Scheduling Conflicts

Part II. Pleadings and Motions · Last amended January 1, 2024 · Last verified September 4, 2026

In one sentenceRule 34 sets out what a party must show to continue a trial or hearing, requires consultation with the other side first, and tells judges how to resolve scheduling conflicts between courts.

Full Text of Rule 34

Text sizeJump to: (a) (b) (c) (d)

(a) Motion to Continue; Unavailability of a Witness or Party. On a motion to continue a trial, hearing, or conference based on the unavailability of a party or witness, the party requesting the continuance must show:

(1) why the testimony of the party or witness is material;

(2) when the party learned of the party's or witness's unavailability;

(3) the party's diligence and efforts in attempting to obtain the party's or witness's testimony; and

(4) the postponement is for good cause and not for delay.

(b) Scheduling Conflicts Between Courts.

(1) Notice to the Courts and Counsel. Upon learning of a scheduling conflict between a trial, hearing, or conference in superior court and another trial or hearing in state or federal court, counsel must promptly notify the affected judges and counsel.

(2) Resolving a Conflict. Upon being notified of a scheduling conflict, the respective judges should confer with each other and counsel to resolve the conflict. Neither federal nor state court actions have priority in scheduling. A court may consider the following factors in resolving the conflict:

(A) whether the other action is a criminal matter, and, if so, whether postponement of that matter will deprive a defendant of a speedy trial;

(B) each action's relative length, urgency, or importance;

(D) the actions' respective filing dates;

(E) which action was first set for trial;

(F) any priority granted by rule or statute; and

(G) any other pertinent factor.

(3) Inter-Division Conflicts. Conflicts in scheduling between divisions of the same court may be governed by local rule or general order.

(c) Motion to Continue; Other Good Cause. On a motion to continue a trial, hearing, or conference based on other good cause, the party requesting the continuance must show:

(1) the basis for the good cause for a continuance;

(2) when the party learned of the circumstance(s) which form(s) the basis for the good cause and why the motion was not or could not have been brought at an earlier date;

(3) the party's diligence and efforts in attempting to avoid the circumstance(s) which form(s) the good cause for the continuance;

(4) the prejudice which may be caused to either party or any children at issue in the action by granting the continuance and by denying the continuance; and

(5) the continuance is sought in good faith and not for delay or another improper purpose.

(d) Duty to Consult. Before filing a motion to continue a trial, hearing, or conference, the moving party must consult with other parties in the case and advise the court whether the other parties object to the motion. This requirement does not apply if:

(1) there is a current court order prohibiting contact between the parties, a history of domestic violence between the parties, or an allegation of domestic violence; and

(2) the alleged victim of the domestic violence is self-represented.

End

Rule History

Added Aug. 30, 2018, effective Jan. 1, 2019. Amended Aug. 29, 2022, effective Jan. 1, 2023; Aug. 24, 2023, effective Jan. 1, 2024.

Plain-English Summary

Rule 34 covers two related problems: a party who needs a date moved, and two courts that have set the same lawyer twice.

Continuance because a party or witness is unavailable

Four showings: why the testimony is material; when the party learned of the unavailability; the party's diligence in trying to obtain the testimony; and that the postponement is for good cause and not for delay.

Continuance for other good cause

Five showings, and they are stricter. The basis for the good cause; when the party learned of the circumstances and why the motion was not or could not have been brought earlier; the party's diligence in trying to avoid the circumstances; the prejudice that granting or denying the continuance may cause to either party or any children at issue; and that the request is in good faith and not for delay or another improper purpose.

The prejudice factor is the family law addition. The court is asked to weigh the effect on the children, not only on the litigants.

The duty to consult -- and its exception

Before filing, the moving party must consult the other parties and tell the court whether they object. That requirement does not apply where there is a current order prohibiting contact, a history of domestic violence, or an allegation of domestic violence, and the alleged victim is self-represented. Both conditions must be present. The same paired test appears in Rule 9(c)(2).

Conflicts between courts

On learning of a conflict between a superior court setting and another state or federal setting, counsel must promptly notify the affected judges and counsel. The judges should then confer. Neither federal nor state court actions have priority -- a point the rule states flatly. The court may weigh whether the other matter is criminal and implicates a speedy trial, the relative length or urgency of each action, out-of-town witnesses or counsel, the filing dates, which was first set for trial, any statutory priority, and any other pertinent factor. Conflicts between divisions of the same court may be handled by local rule or general order.

Frequently Asked Questions

What must I show to continue a hearing because a witness is unavailable?

Rule 34(a) requires four showings: why the testimony is material, when you learned of the unavailability, your diligence in trying to obtain the testimony, and that the postponement is for good cause and not for delay.

Do I have to ask the other side before moving to continue?

Yes. Rule 34(d) requires the moving party to consult the other parties and advise the court whether they object.

Is there an exception to the duty to consult?

Rule 34(d) excuses it where there is a current court order prohibiting contact, a history of domestic violence, or an allegation of domestic violence, and the alleged victim of the domestic violence is self-represented. Both conditions must be met.

Does a federal court setting take priority over a state one?

No. Rule 34(b)(2) states that neither federal nor state court actions have priority in scheduling, and lists factors the courts may weigh in resolving the conflict.

Whose interests does the court weigh on a good cause continuance?

Rule 34(c)(4) asks about the prejudice that granting or denying the continuance may cause to either party and to any children at issue in the action.

What must counsel do on discovering a scheduling conflict?

Rule 34(b)(1) requires counsel to promptly notify the affected judges and counsel on learning of a conflict between a superior court setting and another trial or hearing in state or federal court.

Source & verification. Rule text and Rule History reproduced verbatim from the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure as published by the Arizona Supreme Court, current through amendments effective January 1, 2026. Promulgated by the Supreme Court of Arizona (Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5). Last verified September 4, 2026. · Official text

Also known as: continuancepostponementscheduling conflictmotion to continueunavailable witnessgood causetrial conflict