Read on for important information about extensions of time and augment requests, upcoming trainings, and panel victories.

How to Get Your Extension Request Granted

Life happens. Pressure to take more cases turns into converging deadlines. And sometimes a case just needs more time. Everyone needs an extension on occasion. Yet, the Court may deny extension and augment requests as untimely or for an inadequate showing. It is essential that panel attorneys adhere to the rules and adopt best practices.

So, how can you optimize the chance of getting it granted? And how can you avoid getting into serious time trouble? Below are some tips on how to approach your cases and how to write an effective extension request.  (Much of the information below is presented in greater detail on the FDAP website.)

General Principles
The bottom line is to be proactive:

• calendar all deadlines immediately and sign up for docket notifications in all your cases;
• upon receipt of a record, immediately determine whether anything is missing so you are not making a last-minute request to augment;
• regularly assess your caseload to determine whether to take new cases and whether you even have the bandwidth to properly handle the cases you have. However much the projects are trying to assign backlogged cases, it is far preferable to turn down a case offer or ask to be relieved of an appointment, than to get overloaded;
• Always contact FDAP immediately upon (1) missing a deadline; (2) the Court denying an extension request; or (3) determining that you are facing unmanageable deadlines. Strategize with FDAP before the Court intervenes, criticizing counsel in an order, suggesting counsel should be removed from cases, or directing that the lack of timeliness should be taken into consideration in compensation.

Time-Sensitive Cases
In prioritizing work and deciding whether to seek an extension, consider the time-sensitiveness of the case.

EOT Standards
Be specific; conclusionary statements that more time is needed because of other deadlines is not “good cause.” (Rule 8.63(b).)  Fast track dependency and delinquency cases require “an exceptional showing of good cause” for an extension. (Rules 8.416(f) and 8.417(g).)

EOT Timing
Do not file last minute extension requests. File your request a week or so prior to the current due date.

Use of Default Time
In the First District, do not use the default time (30 days in most cases; 15 days in fast track appeals) unless you know with certainty that you can file your brief within the default period.

EOT Content
Failing to use the Court’s format for an extension can cause counsel to omit important information. While counsel may create their own template, the format must mirror the Court’s form in terms of order and content. Counsel should explain, with some specifics, what work has been performed on the case since the last deadline.

Denials/Warnings
Read the Court’s order to make sure it was granted in full, rather than granted in part or denied. Contact FDAP immediately if (1) the Court states “no further extensions will be granted” and counsel will be unable to meet the new deadline or (2) the Court denies an extension request and counsel will be unable to satisfy the then-current deadline.

Record Correction/Augmentation Timing
Piecemeal augmentation is strongly disfavored. The only exception is when an initial augment reveals additional material to request that counsel could not have known about at the time of the first request.

FDAP Deadlines
Last minute requests for a draft review or no-issue review are very problematic. If counsel is running into time trouble at the draft stage, advance warning to the FDAP consulting attorney is essential.

Upcoming Trainings

Introduction to Civil Commitment Appeals (All Projects)
March 4, 2026, 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. | Remote
Join staff attorneys from all five appellate projects for an overview of civil commitment appeals. California has several statutes that provide for the involuntary commitment of individuals with mental health diagnoses. This webinar will cover all of these schemes, as well as involuntary medication orders and issues common across all types of civil commitment appeals. This training is appropriate for all attorneys, but is geared towards attorneys without civil commitment appeal experience. Please attend if you want to learn about this interesting and rewarding area of appellate practice and/or are interested in expanding your practice to include these cases. 1.0 hour of MCLE credit is offered.

CADC Annual Conference & Seminar
March 20 – 21, 2026 | In-person
Registration is now open for CADC’s Annual Conference and Seminar, which will be held in-person only at the South San Francisco Conference Center. The two-day conference will be filled with informative and inspiring presentations, including the Project Directors Roundtable, a report from CADC’s lobbyist and criminal and dependency break-out sessions, providing a total of up to 8.25 hours of MCLE credit.

SDAP Seminar – Save the Date – May 1, 2026 | Remote
Please save the date for SDAP’s annual seminar! This year’s program will include a range of topics, including the use of AI (artificial intelligence) in appellate practice. Sixth District Court of Appeal Associate Justice Charles E. Wilson will speak.

Panel Victories 

Below are a few noteworthy First District victories from this past month. Please visit the FDAP website for a complete list of panel victories.

A172792 – [Unpublished Opinion | Erin Welsh Keefe]
The Court of Appeal struck a “broad-ranging” electronics search condition as invalid under Ricardo P. The condition, which included searches of any communication likely to reveal whether appellant was complying with his probation terms, burdened appellant’s privacy “in a manner substantially disproportionate” to the government interest in monitoring his compliance.

A168883 & A168655 – [Unpublished Opinion | Mark Greenberg, Cynthia Jones]
In these consolidated co-defendant cases, the Court of Appeal remanded because the sentencing was legally flawed, unclear, and reflected unauthorized sentences. The Court of Appeal had doubt that the trial court exercised informed discretion, requiring vacatur of both sentences and a full resentencing.