(This opinion affirms a trial court’s denial of plaintiff’s attorney’s seventh request for a continuance as an accommodation of his manic-depression mental illness. Under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 1.100(f), a court may deny a request for one of three reasons: the applicant has not satisfied the rule’s requirements or the requested accommodation would create an undue financial or administrative burden on the court or fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity. Here, the court found that a seventh continuance would alter the CEQA proceeding, which is supposed to be expedited, but had already lasted two years due to continuances granted plaintiff’s attorney as accommodations. Moreover, there was no end in sight because the attorney’s mental condition wasn’t improving and plaintiff had failed to hire other counsel to help or replace the existing impaired attorney. The decision distinguishes ng In re Marriage of James & Christine C. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1261 largely because there it was a party in pro per that requested accommodation, thus presenting an access to justice issue not present when, as here, an attorney for a party requests accommodation.)