Understanding the Motion for Continuance in Maryland

What Is the Purpose of a Motion for Continuance?

“On motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may continue a trial or other proceeding as justice may require.” (See Das v. Das (2000) 133 Md. App. 1, 31.)

“Failure to adequately prepare for trial is ordinarily not a proper ground for continuance or postponement." (See Quarles v. Quarles (1985) 62 Md. App. 394, 401; Thompson v. First Liberty Ins. Co., No. 1747, at *19 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 20, 2019).)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Continuance

Rule 2-508 of the Maryland Rules of Civil Procedure deals with continuances and postponements.

The rule states, “on motion of any party or on its own initiative, the court may continue or postpone a trial or other proceeding as justice may require.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-508(a).)

“When an action has been assigned a trial date, the trial shall not be continued or postponed on the ground that discovery has not yet been completed, except for good cause shown.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-508(b).)

“A motion for a continuance or postponement on the ground that a necessary witness is absent shall be supported by an affidavit.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-508(c).)

“The affidavit shall state:

the intention of the affiant to call the witness at the proceeding,
the specific facts to which the witness is expected to testify,
the reasons why the matter cannot be determined with justice to the party without the evidence,
the facts that show that reasonable diligence has been employed to obtain the attendance of the witness, and
the facts that lead the affiant to conclude that the attendance or testimony of the witness can be obtained within a reasonable time. The court may examine the affiant under oath as to any of the matters stated in the affidavit and as to the information or knowledge relied upon by the affiant in determining those facts to which the witness is expected to testify. If satisfied that a sufficient showing has been made, the court shall continue or postpone the proceeding unless the opposing party elects to stipulate that the absent witness would, if present, testify to the facts stated in the affidavit, in which event the court may deny the motion.”

(See id.)

“When granting a continuance or postponement for a reason other than one stated in Rule 16-804(e), the court may assess costs and expenses occasioned by the continuance or postponement.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-508(d).)

Filing a Motion for Continuance to Avoid Summary Judgment

“Maryland Rule 2-501(d) provides that a court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment if the court is persuaded by an affidavit from the party opposing the motion that essential facts cannot be provided unless additional time is allowed.” (See Md. R. Civ. P. Cir. Ct. 2-501(d); 205 Park Rd., LLC v. Barbara Ann Crim Revocable Living Tr., No. 2670, at *11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 14, 2017).)

The Rule states that “if the court is satisfied from the affidavit of a party opposing a motion for summary judgment that the facts essential to justify the opposition cannot be set forth for reasons stated in the affidavit, the court may deny the motion or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be conducted or may enter any other order that justice requires.” (See id.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Continuance

"[W]hether to grant a continuance is in the sound discretion of the trial court, and unless [the court] acts arbitrarily in the exercise of that discretion, his [or her] action will not be reviewed on appeal." (See Roland v. Daramaja, No. 709, at *10-11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 11, 2017); Das v. Das (2000) 133 Md. App. 1, 31; Thanos v. Mitchell (1959) 220 Md. 389, 392.)

“We have described an abuse of discretion as where no reasonable person would take the view adopted by the court, and when the court acts without reference to any guiding rules or principles." (See Roland v. Daramaja, No. 709, at *10-11 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 11, 2017); North v. North (1994) 102 Md. App. 1, 13.)

“Accordingly, reversal of a trial court's decision to deny a continuance occurs only in exceptional instances where there was prejudicial error." (See id.)

“Maryland appellate courts have been reluctant to find abuse of discretion by the circuit court when ruling on motions for continuance, absent cases exhibiting grave and serious error." (See In re McNeil (1974) 21 Md. App. 484, 496-97; In re Adoption of Benjamin F., No. 2252, at *16 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. Aug. 5, 2016).)

“Under Rule 2-508, the trial court has wide latitude in determining whether to grant a continuance." (See Das v. Das (2000) 133 Md. App. 1, 31; Shpak v. Schertle (1993) 97 Md. App. 207, 225, 629 A.2d 763.)

“Reversal on appeal thus occurs only in exceptional instances where there was prejudicial error.” (See id; Thanos v. Mitchell (1959) 220 Md. 389, 392.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Continuance

It is well settled that “for good cause shown in open court any necessary or reasonable continuance may be granted.” (See Latimer v. State (1981) 49 Md. App. 586, 594.)

It is also well settled that the “Court of Appeals has emphasized that it has consistently affirmed the denial of motions to continue in instances where parties have made untimely requests or where procedural rules are ignored.” (See Neustadter v. Holy Cross Hosp. of Silver Spring, Inc. (2011) 418 Md. 231, 242-43; Jenkins v. In Gear Fashions, Inc., No. 2655, at *8 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. July 9, 2018).)

Current as of April 01, 2024 | Updated by Trellis Law Content Team

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information and is subject to change without notice.

Dockets for Motion for Continuance in Maryland

Sort By

Long Reach Knolls Conodminium vs. Oseyemi Adeyemi

Filed

Nov 18, 2022

Status

Active

Court

Howard County

County

Howard County, MD

Case #