Another oral argument calendar announced, another request for a continuance. Two requests, actually. And, although post-argument-scheduling continuance requests have been received favorably of late (see here and here), only one of the two requests was granted this time.
Argument in J.R. Marketing, L.L.C. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company will be moved from the early-May calendar to the late-May or the June calendar. [Disclosure: Horvitz & Levy represents the petitioner on review, but it was the other side that asked for the continuance.]
But argument will proceed as scheduled in People v. Grewal, despite an attorney’s request to “reset” the calendaring. The denial in Grewal might not be due to a loss of patience with late continuance requests, however. Grewal is on a fast track. The court filed two amicus briefs in the case just two days before setting the matter for argument, and it atypically denied an application for an extension of time to answer those and other amicus briefs. Also, Grewal is consolidated with another case, so a continuance would have disrupted the schedule of two cases.
The better practice remains that counsel should tell the court about any potentially conflicting plans as soon as possible, but definitely before a case is placed on the oral argument calendar.