With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". appeared, Plaintiffs counsel moved for default judgment. Instead of granting this motion, the court allowed Defendant to act pro se. In addition, the court intervened during the absence of Defendant’s counsel to prevent the admission of what it deemed to be irrelevant evidence. When defense counsel returned, the court explained to him what had occurred with respect to the "witnesses’ testimony and allowed defense counsel to confer with his client. Because of the lateness of the hour, defense counsel did not have to proceed with his examination of the witness on the stand until the following day. In the interest of judicial economy, a judge is not expected to wait indefinitely. See Norton v. Admin. Director of Court, State of Hawai'i, 80 Hawai'i 197, 201-02, 908 P.2d 545, 549-50, (1995) (<HOLDING>), reconsideration denied, 80 Hawai'i 357, 910

A: holding the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a second continuance until congress acted on the fsa and assuming error no prejudice exists because the fsa is not retroactive
B: holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion for continuance when not in proper affidavit form
C: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing
D: holding that the hearing officer did not abuse her discretion in denying a continuance because she acted within reason by accommodating the attorney
D.