California OAH special education order · April 5, 2013

Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Deferring Ruling on Motion to Bifurcate Residency Issues

OAH Case No. 2013020662, 2013020663 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee

OAH consolidated two siblings' cases against Coronado Unified because both turn on the District's residency defense, but left the request to bifurcate residency for the hearing judge at the prehearing conference.

Ruling Consolidation

This case went to decision

Student v. Coronado Unified School District: Coronado Unified was not responsible for two brothers while their family lived outside the district, but was responsible from January 13, 2013. (2013)

Summary

Students, two siblings who each filed a due process complaint against Coronado Unified School District on the same day, moved to consolidate their cases and to bifurcate the District's residency defense. The District did not respond. OAH granted consolidation because residency is a threshold issue in both cases, involving the same witnesses, documents, and law, and joint handling avoids repeat evidence and inconsistent rulings. OAH denied the bifurcation request as premature, without prejudice, because whether to hear residency separately is up to the ALJ who hears the case, and Students may renew it at the prehearing conference.

Why it matters

Families with siblings facing the same district defense, such as a residency challenge, can ask to have their cases heard together to save time and avoid conflicting results. A request to split off a threshold issue for a separate hearing should usually be raised with the hearing judge at the prehearing conference.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11507.3
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
  • Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
  • Ed. Code, § 48200
  • Ed. Code, § 56028
  • Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School Dist. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 47

Topics

consolidation bifurcation residency siblings settlement agreement disenrollment

Full text of the order

Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

In the Consolidated Matters of:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT I, OAH CASE NO. 2013020662 (Primary)

v.

CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT,

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT II OAH CASE NO. 2013020663

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE AND DEFERRING

CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL RULING ON MOTION TO BIFURCATE

DISTRICT. RESIDENCY ISSUE S

On February 19, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student I filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) in OAH case number 2013020662 (First Case), naming the Coronado Unified School District (District).

Also on February 19, 2013, Parent filed a complaint on behalf of Student II, a sibling of Student I, in OAH case number 2013020663 (Second Case), naming District.

The complaint in the First Case alleges that Student I was denied a free appropriate public education (FAPE) due to District’s failure to honor a settlement agreement. The complaint in the Second Case alleges that District denied Student II a FAPE by disenrolling Student II and failing to implement his individualized education program (IEP). District brought motions to dismiss in both cases raising as a defense that Student I and Student II (collectively Students) are not residents of District, both of which were denied as improperly seeking summary adjudication on an issue that requires a factual inquiry at hearing. Both the First Case and the Second Case, and both cases are at issue.

On March 26, 2013, Students filed a motion to bifurcate and consolidate the residence issues in both cases. District did not file a response to the motion.

APPLICABLE LAW

Although no statute or regulation specifically provides a standard to be applied in deciding a motion to consolidate special education cases, OAH will generally consolidate matters that involve: a common question of law and/or fact; the same parties; and when consolidation of the matters furthers the interests of judicial economy by saving time or preventing inconsistent rulings. (See Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a) [administrative proceedings may be consolidated if they involve a common question of law or fact]; Code of Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a) [same applies to civil cases].)

California Education Code 56501, subdivision (a), provides that the appropriate agency party in a special education due process hearing is the local educational agency involved in the educational decisions regarding the child. The determination of which agency is responsible to provide education to a pupil is determined by residency. (Ed. Code, §§ 48200, 56028; Katz v. Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School Dist. (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 47, 57.).) With some exceptions not relevant here, children between the ages of 6 and 18 must attend school in the district “in which the residency of either the parent or legal guardian is located.” (Ed. Code, § 48200.)

The federal and state law pertaining to special education due process administrative proceedings does not contain a specific reference to the procedure of bifurcating issues for trial. Such authority resides in the discretion of the administrative law judge, provided the separate hearings are conducive to judicial economy or efficient and expeditious use of judicial resources. (See Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (b).)

DISCUSSION

Here, the First Case and the Second Case involve common questions of law and fact.

Specifically, the issue of residency is a threshold jurisdictional issue in both cases.

Consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the respective cases will involve the same witnesses, documents and questions of law on the issue of District’s residency defense, and consolidation will avoid the repetitive presentation of common evidence and prevent inconsistent rulings. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.

Whether or not the residency issue should be bifurcated and heard apart from the remainder of the cases for efficient and expeditious use of judicial resources lies within the discretion of the administrative law judge (ALJ) hearing the matter. Therefore, Students’ motion to bifurcate the hearing of District’s residency defense is denied as premature, and without prejudice to renewal of this motion before the hearing ALJ at the time of the prehearing conference (PHC) on the consolidated matters.

ORDER

1. Students’ motion to consolidate is granted. OAH case number 2013020662 (First

Case) is designated the primary case in these consolidated matters.

2. All dates previously set in OAH case number 2013020663 (Second Case) are

vacated.

3. Student’s motion to bifurcate is denied, without prejudice to renewal at the PHC.

4. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be

based on the date of the filing of the complaint in OAH case number 2013020662 (First Case).

Dated: April 05, 2013 /s/

ALEXA J. HOHENSEE

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings