In Beckman v. Thompson (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 481, the appellate court affirmed the denial of a plaintiff's request for a continuance, stating: "Finally appellant contends the trial court should have granted a continuance to enable appellant to conduct discovery to attempt to obtain evidence which would support jurisdiction. In his request for continuance appellant did not suggest that discovery was likely to produce evidence of additional California contacts by respondent . . . relating to this transaction. He only suggested a desire to find out if respondent was engaged in 'substantial lending activities in California.' . . . We find no abuse of discretion. In light of the showings already made, the court could reasonably conclude further discovery would not likely lead to production of evidence establishing jurisdiction." (Beckman, supra, 4 Cal.App.4th at pp. 486-487.)