discretion to continue hearing in California

2023“A trial court has the discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173 .) “In order to prevail on a motion for a continuance for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead to the production of evidence of facts establishing jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Antitrust Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 127 (Automobile Antitrust Cases).) Bec

2020“A trial court has the discretion to continue the hearing on a motion to quash service of summons for lack of personal jurisdiction to allow the plaintiff to conduct discovery on jurisdictional issues.” (HealthMarkets, Inc. v. Superior Court (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1160, 1173 .) “A plaintiff is generally entitled to conduct discovery with regard to a jurisdictional issue before a court rules on a motion to quash.” (Goehring v. Superior Court (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 894, 911 .) To prevail on a request “for jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiff should demonstrate that discovery is likely to lead

2017Corp . (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 341 , 344, 210 Cal.Rptr. 162 .) Section 1305.1 codifies a limited exception to this general rule. ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) It states that, "[i]f the defendant fails to appear ... but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse *187 may exist for the failure to appear, the court may continue the case for a period it deems reasonable to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant." (§ 1305.1.) Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and

2017Corp . (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 341 , 344, 210 Cal.Rptr. 162 .) Section 1305.1 codifies a limited exception to this general rule. ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) It states that, "[i]f the defendant fails to appear ... but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse *187 may exist for the failure to appear, the court may continue the case for a period it deems reasonable to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant." (§ 1305.1.) Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and

2023(In re Adam R., at p. 352.) As noted above, the juvenile court has the discretion to continue a hearing on a petition for 3 six months and order a minor participate in diversion programming. (§ 654.2.) If the probation department recommends additional time to enable a minor to complete the program, “the court at its discretion may order an extension,” subject to the caveat that “proceedings on the petition shall proceed no later than 12 months from the date the petition was filed.” (Ibid.) “[I]f a court is to make an independent determination of a minor’s suitability for [diversion], it should

2019Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 45 , 48–49.) There is a limited exception to this rule under section 1305.1, if “the court has reason to believe that [a] sufficient excuse may exist . . . , [it] may continue the case for a [reasonable] period . . . to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of [the bond].” (§ 1305.1.) “Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and retain its jurisdiction to declare a forfeiture, as long as it has reason to believe that a sufficient excuse exists for the defendant’s nonappearance. [Citation.]” (People v. Financial Casualty & Sure

2017Corp . (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 341 , 344, 210 Cal.Rptr. 162 .) Section 1305.1 codifies a limited exception to this general rule. ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) It states that, "[i]f the defendant fails to appear ... but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse *187 may exist for the failure to appear, the court may continue the case for a period it deems reasonable to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant." (§ 1305.1.) Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and

2017Corp . (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 341 , 344, 210 Cal.Rptr. 162 .) Section 1305.1 codifies a limited exception to this general rule. ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) It states that, "[i]f the defendant fails to appear ... but the court has reason to believe that sufficient excuse *187 may exist for the failure to appear, the court may continue the case for a period it deems reasonable to enable the defendant to appear without ordering a forfeiture of bail or issuing a bench warrant." (§ 1305.1.) Thus, the court has the discretion to continue a hearing, and

2017Co . (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 13 , 19, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 807 .) *135 " 'The theory behind this exception is that "[i]f bail forfeiture is required immediately upon the first nonappearance of a defendant, no matter how valid his reason for nonappearance be, such defendant would be subjected not only to having his bail forfeited but the additional penalty of possibly being required to pay another premium for its reinstatement." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) The determination of whether an excuse is sufficient is within the trial

2017Co . (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 13 , 19, 36 Cal.Rptr.2d 807 .) *135 " 'The theory behind this exception is that "[i]f bail forfeiture is required immediately upon the first nonappearance of a defendant, no matter how valid his reason for nonappearance be, such defendant would be subjected not only to having his bail forfeited but the additional penalty of possibly being required to pay another premium for its reinstatement." [Citation.]' [Citation.]" ( National Auto , supra , 121 Cal.App.4th at p. 1450 , 18 Cal.Rptr.3d 357 .) The determination of whether an excuse is sufficient is within the trial

2014(In re David H. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1626, 1635 .) Father asserts that the juvenile court abused its discretion in refusing to continue his section 388 hearing so he could obtain a copy of the full transcript of the prior hearing at which the court modified the domestic violence term of his case plan.