Motion for Continuance in Louisiana

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Continuance

“In the interest of justice, the trial court may grant a continuance upon written motion at any time after a contradictory hearing.” (See State v. McGee (2005) 894 So. 2d 398, 409.)

“A continuance may be granted in any case if there is good ground therefor.” (See I.Q. Invest. v. Cartozzo (1998) 719 So. 2d 1155, 1157; La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1601.)

Rule for Filing a Motion for Continuance

A motion for continuance is governed under article 1603 of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure.

“A motion for a continuance shall set forth the grounds upon which it is based, and if in writing shall comply with the provisions of Article 863.” (See La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 1603.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Continuance

“The decision to grant or deny a continuance rests in the sound discretion of the trial judge.” (See I.Q. Invest. v. Cartozzo (1998) 719 So. 2d 1155, 1157.)

“The trial court's ruling on a motion for continuance will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear showing of abuse of that discretion.” (See id; State v. Frisard, 96-368 (La.App. 5 Cir. 4/29/97), 694 So.2d 1032; Metropolitan Reporters, Inc. v. Avery, 95-504 (La.App. 5 Cir. 11/28/95), 665 So.2d 547.)

“Generally, an abuse of discretion results from a conclusion reached capriciously or in an arbitrary manner.” (See Sullivan v. Brookshire Grocery Co. & Sealy Uptown, LLC (2022) 348 So. 3d 872, 875.)

“The word ‘arbitrary’ implies a disregard of evidence or the proper weight thereof. A conclusion is ‘capricious’ when there is no substantial evidence to support it or the conclusion is contrary to substantiated competent evidence.” (See id.)

“Although a reviewing court defers to reasonable decisions within the trial court's discretion, a decision based upon an erroneous interpretation or application of the law, rather than a valid exercise of discretion, is not entitled to such deference.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Continuance

It is well settled that “the mere absence of a party from court is not [a] sufficient ground for granting a continuance." (See Mongrue v. Mongrue (1981) 398 So.2d 1199, 1201; Doe v. Lewis (2020) 312 So. 3d 1165, 1171.)

It is also well settled that “when preparation time is unreasonably short, counsel has been diligent, and there is a general allegation of prejudice, denial of a motion for a continuance is an abuse of discretion which constitutes reversible error.” (See State v. Gauthier (2005) 916 So. 2d 314, 327.)