Butler County Court of Common Pleas, General Division Adjournment & Extension Requirements

A continuance will not be granted merely because of a scheduling conflict.

NO CONTINUANCES OF ANY SCHEDULED PROCEEDING WILL BE GRANTED DUE TO “SCHEDULING CONFLICT.”

Unless exceptional circumstances require otherwise, a continuance must be requested by written motion at least 10 days before the hearing.

Unless exceptional circumstances require otherwise, all requests to continue hearings shall be made by written motion at least 10 days prior to the scheduled hearing date.

A continuance motion must certify that all appearing parties and counsel were contacted and state their consent position, or explain why contact was impossible.

Any Common Pleas Court Butler County, Ohio party or counsel filing a motion to continue shall certify that all other parties/counsel who have entered appearance have been contacted and whether they consent to the continuance, or shall state a reason why such contact was not possible.

A party requesting a continuance must notify all parties, including those who have not entered an appearance, before the hearing.

prior to a hearing, the requesting party is responsible for notifying all parties, whether they have entered appearance or not, of the continuance.

The court will grant a continuance only when good cause is shown.

Continuances will only be granted for good cause shown.

A motion to continue may be denied, and dismissal without prejudice may result, when a party is unprepared to conclude the case timely and the continuance would conflict with Supreme Court guidelines.

Parties who are unprepared to conclude their case in a timely manner may face denial of a motion to continue (even if unopposed) and dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Civ. R. 41(B) if a continuance will run contrary to Supreme Court guidelines.

A motion to extend a response, reply, or other deadline must be filed before the deadline and, except in extraordinary circumstances, state whether the opposing parties consent.

Motions for extension of time to respond/reply, or to extend any other deadline, must be filed prior to the deadline and (except due to extraordinary circumstances) must include whether the opposing parties consent to the extension.

An extension will be denied if it would leave insufficient time to resolve the underlying motion before pretrial or trial.

Such motions will be denied if the Court determines an extension will leave insufficient time to resolve the motion prior to pretrial or trial.

Denial of an extension leaves the original deadline in force, and untimely filings may be stricken even when an extension was sought and denied.

Parties are cautioned that the denial of a motion for an extension leaves the original deadline intact and untimely filings may be stricken regardless of whether an extension was requested and denied.

If any appearing party or counsel does not consent, the continuance motion must say so, and the court may require a hearing before ruling.

If all such parties/counsel do not consent, the motion shall so state and the Court, at its discretion, may require a hearing prior to ruling on the motion to continue.

Failure to perfect service, ongoing settlement or loss-mitigation efforts, and previously nonexistent scheduling conflicts do not alone establish good cause for a continuance.

Good cause to continue a hearing shall not be found solely due to failure to perfect service, ongoing settlement discussions (including loss mitigation efforts in foreclosure cases) or scheduling conflicts which did not exist at the time the hearing was scheduled.

A multi-attorney firm should make reasonable efforts to arrange alternate counsel coverage instead of moving for a continuance when counsel of record is unavailable.

In order for the efficient management of the Court’s docket in setting initial case management conferences, which are primarily for scheduling purposes, the Court expects that firms or law offices with multiple attorneys will make reasonable efforts to arrange for coverage by alternate in-house counsel or local counsel rather than moving for a continuance if counsel of record is unavailable.

The court does not limit a case to one continuance and generally expects the initial scheduling order to be the only scheduling order issued.

The Court does not subscribe to a “one continuance” rule and, other than agreed modifications as set forth in Section D, below, expects that the first scheduling order be the only scheduling order issued in a case.