4.8Adjournments1
Trials, alternative dispute resolution processes, pretrial conferences, and all motion hearings may be adjourned pursuant to MCR 2.503(A).
A request for an adjournment must be by motion or stipulation, in writing or on the record, and based on good cause. MCR 2.503(B). The request must include:
(1) Which party is requesting the adjournment. MCR 2.503(B)(2)(a).
(2) The reason for the adjournment. MCR 2.503(B)(2)(b).
(3) Whether other adjournments have been granted and, if so, how many. MCR 2.503(B)(2)(c).
(4) A caption that specifies whether it is the first or a subsequent request. MCR 2.503(B)(3).
Unavailability of a witness or evidence may be the basis for requesting an adjournment. MCR 2.503(C). According to MCR 2.503(C):
(1) The request must be made as soon as possible after knowledge. MCR 2.503(C)(1).
(2) The court must find:
•The evidence is material, and
•The party made diligent efforts in attempting to produce the witness or evidence. MCR 2.503(C)(2).
(3) If the adverse party stipulates in writing or on the record to the evidence and the evidence would be admissible, an adjournment is not required. MCR 2.503(C)(3).
The court “may grant an adjournment to promote the cause of justice.” Zerillo v Dyksterhouse, 191 Mich App 228, 230 (1991). MCR 2.503(D) requires the order to be in writing or on the record and to state the reason for granting the request. MCR 2.503(D)(1). The court may impose costs and conditions. MCR 2.503(D)(2). An adjournment may be vacated if nonpayment is shown by written statement verified under MCR 1.109(D)(3). MCR 2.503(D)(2).
An adjournment (at least 28 days) must be ordered where an attorney in the case has died, become physically or mentally unable to continue in the case, been disbarred, been suspended, been placed on inactive status, or resigned from active membership in the bar. MCR 2.503(F).
“[T]o establish good cause in the context of a motion for an adjournment a party must show a legally sufficient or substantial reason.” Ypsilanti Twp v Dahabra, 338 Mich App 287, 292 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). In Dahabra, 338 Mich App at 292, defendant was “an impoverished individual who thereby might have some difficulty expeditiously obtaining counsel for a civil defense,” which was “a legally sufficient, substantial reason to seek an adjournment.” Additionally, “the existence of [defendant’s] ongoing criminal case [(relating to the same conduct as defendant’s civil nuisance abatement case)] tended to support the necessity of an adjournment.” Id. at 294. “While a trial court need not in every instance delay a civil abatement suit until after the criminal trial on the same facts is completed, the decision to proceed with or delay a civil abatement suit must be tested against the equity and necessity for proceeding with the civil action under the circumstances of a given case.” Id. at 295 (cleaned up). In light of the circumstances presented in Dahabra, there was “no valid reason for the trial court to have outrightly ignored defendant’s request for an adjournment in order to obtain counsel,” and “[t]he trial court’s decision simply did not promote the cause of justice[.]” Id. at 295-296 (concluding that the trial court’s “failure to consider defendant’s request for an adjournment constituted an abuse of discretion”).
The court must either reschedule the adjourned matter for a specific date or “place the matter on a specified list of actions or other matters which will automatically reappear before the court on the first available date.” MCR 2.503(E)(1)-(2).
If a conflict with another court exists with regard to scheduled trial dates, it is the attorney’s responsibility to notify the court. MCR 2.501(D)(2). If the parties or their attorneys cannot resolve the conflict by consulting with the individual courts, “the judges shall consult directly to resolve the conflict.” Id. Except where statute, court rule, or special circumstances dictate otherwise, priority is given to the trial set first. MCR 2.501(D)(3).
The decision whether to grant a continuance or an adjournment is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Soumis v Soumis, 218 Mich App 27, 32 (1996).
1 The use of videoconferencing technology is presumed through the application of MCR 2.408(B)(4) and MCR 2.408(C)(4) to adjournments. See Section 1.15 for more information on videoconferencing.