How to File a Stipulation to Continue Trial in California

A stipulation to continue trial in California is not, by itself, a filing the court will act on. Under California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1332, even when every party signs off on postponing the trial, the request has to be presented as a noticed motion or an ex parte application, with supporting declarations and a showing of good cause.¹ Agreement between the parties is one factor the judge weighs. It is not a substitute for the procedure.

The Signed Stipulation Is Not the Filing

This is where most people go wrong. Rule 3.1332(b) says a party seeking a continuance “whether contested or uncontested or stipulated to by the parties, must make the request for a continuance by a noticed motion or an ex parte application under the rules in chapter 4 of this division, with supporting declarations.”¹

Read that carefully. Stipulated requests get the same procedural treatment as contested ones. The stipulation itself functions as evidence that everyone agrees, but the court still needs the motion or application wrapped around it. Filing a signed stipulation and a proposed order without that wrapper is a common way to have the whole thing bounced on procedural grounds, no matter how reasonable the underlying request is.

What Counts as Good Cause

California courts treat assigned trial dates as firm. A continuance is granted “only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.”¹ The parties wanting more time is not itself good cause.

Rule 3.1332(c) identifies circumstances that may qualify:

An essential lay or expert witness is unavailable because of death, illness, or other excusable circumstances.
A party is unavailable for similar excusable reasons.
Trial counsel is unavailable due to death, illness, or excusable circumstances.
Substitution of counsel is required in the interests of justice.
A recently added party has not had a reasonable opportunity to prepare, or existing parties need time to address the new party’s involvement.
A significant, unanticipated change in case status means the case is genuinely not ready for trial.

What routinely fails: general unpreparedness, scheduling inconvenience, and incomplete discovery in a case where the party had months to pursue it. Judges see those reasons constantly. Mutual agreement will not rescue them.

What to File

Because the stipulation rides inside a motion or ex parte application, you are assembling a package, not a single document.

The Stipulation

The written stipulation, signed by all parties or their attorneys, should state the current trial date, the proposed new date, and the specific factual basis for the request. It should also describe diligence: what the parties did to try to avoid needing a continuance, and why the issue could not have been addressed sooner. If incomplete discovery is the reason, spell out what remains, what was already attempted, and what changed. A bare statement that good cause exists will not move a judge.

Supporting Declarations

Rule 3.1332(b) requires “supporting declarations” alongside the motion or application.¹ These are sworn statements, usually from counsel, made under penalty of perjury. If a witness’s medical condition is the reason, attach or describe a doctor’s note. If newly discovered evidence is the reason, say what was found, when, and why it was not available earlier. Vague declarations get vague results.

Proposed Order

Include a proposed order for the judge to sign. It should set the new trial date and address any related pretrial deadlines the parties want moved with it. Many California courts accept a combined document titled “Stipulation and [Proposed] Order,” but local rules vary and some counties want them filed separately. Check your county’s requirements before you file.

What the Judge Weighs Beyond Good Cause

Even where good cause exists, Rule 3.1332(d) directs the court to weigh a broader set of factors.¹ The ones most likely to affect a stipulated request:

How close the trial date is. A request filed two months out lands very differently from one filed the week before trial.
How many continuances the case has already had. Judges track this closely, and prior delays raise the bar.
The length of the requested delay. Thirty days is easier to justify than six months.
Whether the problem could be solved without moving the trial date, such as by using a different witness or adjusting the trial schedule.
Prejudice to parties or witnesses, including memory loss or availability concerns.
Preferential trial settings for elderly or terminally ill parties.
The impact on the court’s calendar and every other case waiting for a courtroom.
Whether all parties stipulated. This is the factor your stipulation directly addresses. It helps. It is one factor out of eleven, not a trump card.

A stipulation that addresses these factors head-on is more persuasive than one that only explains the reason for the delay. If the case has been continued before, acknowledge it and explain why this one is different. If the requested delay is long, justify the length. Courts respond better to parties who show they understand the court’s concerns than to parties who treat the filing as a formality.

Timing: Noticed Motion or Ex Parte

Rule 3.1332(b) requires filing “as soon as reasonably practical once the necessity for the continuance is discovered.”¹ Waiting until the last minute is itself a reason to deny. Judges will ask why you did not file sooner.

A noticed motion under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 generally requires that moving papers be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing, with additional days added for service by mail or overnight delivery. If trial is close and you cannot fit that timeline, an ex parte application is the alternative. Ex parte applications typically require notice to opposing parties before the hearing, sometimes as little as the day before. Judges scrutinize ex parte requests more closely because of the compressed timeline, but a fully signed stipulation helps considerably in that setting because no one can claim ambush. Most California courts accept electronic filing for both, subject to local rules.

A Continuance Does Not Reopen Discovery

This is where litigants get burned. Under Code of Civil Procedure section 2024.020, the right to complete discovery cuts off 30 days before the initially set trial date, and discovery motions must be heard at least 15 days before that date. The word “initially” is doing real work. The statute says outright that “a continuance or postponement of the trial date does not operate to reopen discovery proceedings.”²

If you need more discovery time, you have to ask for it separately under section 2024.050, with its own showing of good cause and a meet-and-confer declaration. The same principle applies to expert designation deadlines under section 2034. Do not assume a new trial date resets anything else. If you need discovery reopened, request it in the continuance filing itself or in a companion motion.

Watch the Five-Year Deadline

California requires every civil action to be brought to trial within five years of filing. If that deadline passes, dismissal is mandatory, not discretionary.³ Every continuance moves you closer to that cliff. In a case that has already been pending for years, a further delay can end it.

The parties can extend the five-year period by written stipulation under section 583.330. The stipulation does not have to be filed with the court, but it should be brought to the court’s attention if dismissal is ever raised. If your case is anywhere near the four-year mark, address the five-year deadline directly in the continuance paperwork. The worst outcome is getting your continuance and then losing the case to a dismissal motion because no one extended the statutory clock.

If a Party Is on Active Military Duty

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act provides a separate federal right to a stay that applies in California state courts. Under 50 U.S.C. section 3932, the court must grant a stay of at least 90 days if the servicemember submits a letter explaining how current military duties prevent appearance, with an expected availability date, along with a letter from the commanding officer confirming that military leave is not authorized.⁴ The protection extends to those within 90 days of discharge, and further stays are available on application. When the statutory requirements are met, the stay is mandatory and does not depend on Rule 3.1332’s good cause analysis.

If the Court Denies the Stipulated Request

Denial leaves the existing trial date and every related deadline in place. The parties have to be ready to go. At that point, the party who most needs the delay can file a formal noticed motion for continuance with new or more detailed declarations. Procedurally this is the same filing Rule 3.1332(b) always required, but the framing changes. Instead of a cooperative request, one party now carries the full burden of showing that proceeding on schedule would produce a fundamentally unfair result.

The court will run the Rule 3.1332(d) factors again, and the prior denial weighs against a second attempt unless something has materially changed. If the first denial was about thin facts rather than a fundamental disagreement, a better-supported second filing can still succeed. The window between denial and trial is usually narrow, so the second filing needs to be substantially stronger. It is also worth proposing alternatives to a full continuance where they fit, such as a compressed trial schedule, bifurcated issues, or remote testimony for a specific witness.

1
Judicial Branch of California. California Rules of Court – Rule 3.1332 Motion or Application for Continuance of Trial
2
California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 2024.020
3
California Legislative Information. California Code CCP – 583.360
4
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 50 USC 3932 – Stay of Proceedings When Servicemember Has Notice