RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

Rule 6.040.Resolving Scheduling Conflicts

Current through August 1, 2026 · Last verified September 12, 2026

In one sentenceUTCR 6.040 sends a conflict between court appearances set for the same time to the presiding judges of the affected courts, on a motion the party files in each, lists the factors they weigh, and refers the dispute to the Chief Justice when the judges cannot agree.

Full Text of Rule 6.040

Text sizeJump to: (1) (2) (3)

(1) When a party is scheduled to appear in more than one court at the same time, and has been unable to obtain a postponement in one of the courts, the scheduling conflict will be resolved by the presiding judges of the affected courts on motion of the affected party in both courts.
(2) In resolving scheduling conflicts, the following must be considered:
(a) Statutory preference;
(b) The custodial status of a criminal defendant;
(c) The filing date of the case;
(d) The dates on which the courts sent notices of the trial date;
(e) The relative complexity of the cases;
(f) The availability of a competent, prepared substitute attorney; and
(g) The inconvenience to the parties, the witnesses, or the court.
(3) If the scheduling conflict cannot be resolved by the affected presiding judges after consultation with each other, the conflict must be referred by them to the Chief Justice for summary resolution.
End

Plain-English Summary

The rule has a precondition worth noticing. It applies when a party is scheduled to appear in more than one court at the same time and has been unable to obtain a postponement in one of them. Try the postponement route first. This rule is what happens after that fails.

The mechanics are unusual in one respect: the decision does not belong to either trial judge. The conflict is resolved by the presiding judges of the affected courts, and the affected party has to move in both courts, not just the one it would rather leave.

The rule then tells those judges what to weigh. Statutory preference. The custodial status of a criminal defendant. The filing date of each case. The dates on which the courts sent notices of the trial date. The relative complexity of the cases. Whether a competent, prepared substitute attorney is available. And the inconvenience to the parties, the witnesses, or the court. A motion that speaks to these factors gives the presiding judges what they need; one that says only that the lawyer is busy does not.

If the presiding judges consult each other and still cannot resolve it, they must refer the conflict to the Chief Justice for summary resolution. The referral is theirs to make, not the party's.

Frequently Asked Questions

I have appearances in two courts at the same time. What do I do?

First try to get one of them postponed. This rule only comes into play once you have been unable to obtain a postponement in one of the courts. At that point, file a motion in both courts and let their presiding judges sort out which appearance goes forward.

Who decides which case takes priority?

The presiding judges of the affected courts, acting together. That is a step above the individual judges assigned to the two cases, which is why the motion has to be filed in both courts.

What do the judges look at when they decide?

Seven things: statutory preference, the custodial status of a criminal defendant, the filing date of the case, the dates the courts sent notices of the trial date, the relative complexity of the cases, whether a competent and prepared substitute attorney is available, and the inconvenience to the parties, the witnesses, or the court.

What if the two presiding judges cannot agree?

They consult with each other, and if that does not resolve it they must refer the conflict to the Chief Justice for summary resolution. The rule says nothing about how the Chief Justice takes it up.

Do I file one motion or two?

Two. The rule says the conflict is resolved on motion of the affected party in both courts, so filing only in the court you want to leave will not start the process.

Source & verification. The rule text is reproduced verbatim from the official Oregon Uniform Trial Court Rules (UTCR 6.040). Prescribed by the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court (UTCR 1.020). The plain-English summary is original and written by us. Last verified September 12, 2026. · Official source
Also known as: scheduling conflict between courtsappearances in two courts same daypresiding judge resolves conflictChief Justice summary resolutionsubstitute attorney availability