Walla

DISCUSSION

I. The deficient record precludes meaningful review

Walla contends that the trial court abused its discretion because it granted the County’s request for a trial continuance when the County failed to demonstrate good cause. Walla further contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment because the County’s motion was untimely under the original trial date. We review the trial continuance ruling for abuse of discretion. (Jensen v. Superior Court (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 266, 271.) “Although continuances of trials are disfavored, each request for a continuance must be considered on its own merits. The court may grant a continuance only on an affirmative showing of good cause requiring the continuance.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c); see Thurman v. Bayshore Transit Management, Inc. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1127, disapproved on another ground in ZB, N.A. v. Superior Court (2019) 8 Cal.5th 175, 196, fn. 8.) “The decision to grant or deny a continuance is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. [Citation.] . . . A reviewing court may not disturb the exercise of discretion by a trial court in the absence of a clear abuse thereof…