(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. (Subd (a) repealed and adopted effective January 1, 2004; amended effective January 1, 1995.)
Rule 3.1332.Motion or application for continuance of trial
Division 11. Law and Motion · Chapter 6. Particular Motions · Article 2. Procedural Motions · Last amended 2007 · Last verified July 29, 2026
In one sentenceRule 3.1332 treats trial dates as firm, requires a party seeking a continuance to file a noticed motion or ex parte application with supporting declarations as soon as the need arises, and lists the good-cause grounds and other factors a court must weigh before granting one.
Full Text of Rule 3.1332
(b) Motion or application A party seeking a continuance of the date set for trial, whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations. The party must make the motion or application as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered. (Subd (b) amended effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective January 1, 1995.)
(c) Grounds for continuance Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance. Circumstances that may indicate good cause include:
(1) The unavailability of an essential lay or expert witness because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(2) The unavailability of a party because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(3) The unavailability of trial counsel because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances;
(4) The substitution of trial counsel, but only 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. (Subd (c) amended effective January 1, 2007; adopted effective January 1, 2004.)
(d) Other factors to be considered In ruling on a motion or application for continuance, the court must consider all the facts and circumstances that are relevant to the determination. These may include:
(1) The proximity of the trial date;
(2) Whether there was any previous continuance, extension of time, or delay of trial due to 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. (Subd (d) adopted effective January 1, 2004.)
Plain-English Summary
Rule 3.1332 opens with a policy statement: trial dates in California civil cases are firm, and everyone involved — parties and lawyers alike — should treat the assigned date as fixed rather than a placeholder. That framing colors how courts approach every request that follows to move the date.
A party who needs more time cannot ask informally or wait until the eve of trial. The rule requires a noticed motion or an ex parte application, backed by declarations, filed as soon as the party realizes a continuance is needed rather than after sitting on the problem. Whether the parties agree to the continuance or dispute it, the same procedural track applies.
Because continuances work against the goal of prompt disposition, Rule 3.1332 requires an affirmative showing of good cause and lists examples: an unavailable witness, party, or trial counsel; a late substitution of counsel required by the interests of justice; a newly added party who has not had time to prepare; an inability to obtain essential evidence despite diligent effort; or an unanticipated change that leaves the case unready for trial. Even then, the court weighs additional factors — how close the trial date is, whether earlier continuances already pushed the case back, the length of the delay requested, prejudice to the parties or witnesses, the court’s own calendar, and whether the parties stipulated — before deciding whether the interests of justice favor a continuance, going to trial as scheduled, or granting the continuance on conditions.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you ask a California court for a trial continuance?
By noticed motion or ex parte application with supporting declarations, filed as soon as the need for a continuance becomes apparent, under Rule 3.1332(b).
What counts as good cause for a trial continuance in California?
Rule 3.1332(c) lists examples: an unavailable witness, party, or trial counsel; a required substitution of counsel; a newly added party who has not had time to prepare; an inability to obtain essential evidence despite diligence; or an unanticipated change in the case’s status.
What else does a judge consider besides good cause when deciding whether to continue a trial?
Rule 3.1332(d) lists factors such as proximity to the trial date, prior continuances, the length of continuance requested, prejudice to the parties or witnesses, the court’s calendar, and whether the parties stipulated to the continuance.
Are trial continuances easy to get in California?
No. Rule 3.1332(c) states that continuances are disfavored, even though each request is considered on its own merits and can be granted on an affirmative showing of good cause.
Amendment History
Rule 3.1332 amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; adopted as rule 375 effective January 1, 1984; previously amended effective January 1, 1985, January 1, 1995, and January 1, 2004.
Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from
the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California.
Last verified July 29, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: how to continue a trial date Californiagood cause for continuance California civil caseex parte trial continuance California rule