law-motion-for-continuance MFC | need for further discovery as ground for motion to continue trial
Standard of review
We review the denial of a motion for continuance for an abuse of discretion. In re R.R., 209 S.W.3d 112,
114 (Tex. 2006); Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624, 626 (Tex. 1986). A trial court abuses its discretion
when it acts in an arbitrary and unreasonable manner or when it acts without reference to any guiding
rules or principles. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241–42 (Tex. 1985).
Under the abuse of discretion standard, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s
actions and indulge every presumption in favor of the judgment. Holley v. Holley, 864 S.W.2d 703, 706
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, writ denied). If some probative and substantive evidence supports
the order, there is no abuse of discretion. Whitworth v. Whitworth, 222 S.W.3d 616, 623 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.).
MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL OR HEARING
Motion For Continuance Must Be in Writing
Devereaux v. Harris County Hospital District (Tex.App.- Houston [1st. Dist.] Mar. 22, 2007)(Alcala)
(health care liability claim dismissed with prejudice, deadline to file expert report missed; parties argued
over characterization claims as HCLC; motion for continuance, absence of counsel]
Motion for Continuance Must be Sworn
A motion for continuance may not be granted “except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by
consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” TEX. R. CIV. P. 251; O’Connor v. O’Connor, 245 S.W.3d
511, 516 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet.). Lack of counsel, standing alone, is not good
cause for a continuance. TEX. R. CIV. P. 253; O’Connor, 245 S.W.3d at 516.
A motion for continuance may not be granted “except for sufficient cause supported by affidavit, or by
consent of the parties, or by operation of law.” Tex. R. Civ. P. 251; O’Connor v. O’Connor, 245 S.W.3d
511, 516 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2007, no pet. h.). Absence of counsel, standing alone, is not
good cause for a continuance. Tex. R. Civ. P. 253; O’Connor, 245 S.W.3d at 516. When withdrawal of
counsel is the ground for continuance, the movant must show that failure to be represented by counsel at
trial was not due to his own fault or negligence. Villegas, 711 S.W.2d at 626.
Ritu does not make any such showing. Singh v. Singh (Tex.App.- Houston [1st Dist.] Apr. 9, 2009)(Bland)
(divorce with children, conservatorship SAPCR, division of marital property, denial of Motion for
Continuance and motion for new trial)
Factor relevant to whether motion for continuance should be granted
See Joe v. Two Thirty Nine Joint Venture, 145 S.W.3d 150, 161 (Tex. 2004) (listing nonexclusive factors
for court to consider in determining whether to continue summary judgment hearing such as the length of
time the case has been on file, the materiality and purpose of the discovery sought, and whether the party
seeking the continuance has exercised due diligence to obtain the discovery sought).
CLAIMS AND DEFENSES IN TEXAS COURTS | INDEX TO HOUSTON CASE LAW PAGES |
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS OPINIONS
HOUSTON OPINIONS HOME PAGE