Opinion ID: 1733896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the propriety of the referee's refusal to grant kandekore a continuance

Text: This Court has held in the past that a referee may properly deny an eleventh hour request for a delay in the proceedings. See Florida Bar v. Pavlick, 504 So.2d 1231, 1234 (Fla.1987); Florida Bar v. Lipman, 497 So.2d 1165, 1167-68 (Fla. 1986) (finding that [i]t is within the sound discretion of the referee ... to grant or deny a motion for continuance and that [s]uch a ruling will not be disturbed by this Court absent a clear abuse of discretion). In Pavlick, The Florida Bar sought a delay in the proceedings so that it could provide a more complete version of the facts. 504 So.2d at 1234. This Court held that the referee did not err in denying the request since the Bar failed to demonstrate that it could not have obtained this evidence earlier. Id. In arguing for a continuance, Kandekore neither claimed that he failed to receive notice of the hearing nor alleged that he was unable to receive the evidence he wished to present prior to the hearing. Rather, he appeared totally unprepared, and failed to offer any explanation as to why, other than stating his belief that the hearing was supposed to be an inquiry and that the Bar was supposed to provide the referee with all of the facts. In light of Kandekore's lack of explanation for his eleventh hour request, we conclude that the referee did not abuse his discretion in denying Kandekore's request for a continuance.