Is a superior court's decision not to continue, on its own motion, a hearing for a restraining order under the DVPA reviewed for abuse of discretion?

The word "may" indicates discretionary authority and, therefore, we conclude a superior court's decision not to continue, on its own motion, a hearing for a restraining order under the DVPA is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. ( 12 [" 'may' is permissive"]; Baldwin v. Baldwin (1944) 67 Cal.App.2d 175, 177 [use of "may" in rule granted discretionary authority].) This conclusion is consistent with the general rule that the grant or refusal of a continuance is committed to the discretion of the superior court and its ruling will not be disturbed unless a clear abuse of that discretion is shown.

Page 16