California OAH special education order · March 29, 2013
Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate With Case No. 2013020547
OAH Case No. 2013030937, 2013020547 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied District's motion to consolidate as premature because Student's complaint was being amended and District's complaint had been found insufficient, so common issues could not yet be determined.
Summary
District filed its own due process complaint and asked OAH to consolidate it with Student's earlier-filed case, and Student opposed. At the time, Student had a pending motion to amend his complaint to add claims, and District's complaint had been found insufficiently pleaded, with 14 days to amend or face dismissal. Because neither case was settled in its final form, OAH could not tell whether the cases shared common questions of law or fact or whether consolidation would save time, so it denied the motion as premature.
Why it matters
A motion to consolidate can be denied as premature when one complaint is being amended or the other has been found insufficient. Parents can oppose an early consolidation request, and the district can try again once both pleadings are final.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
Topics
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:
ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH CASE NO. 2013030937
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
v. MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITH
CASE NO. 2013020547
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On February 13, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) in OAH case number 2013020547 (First Case), naming the Acalanes Union High School District (District).
On March 21, 2013, District filed a complaint in OAH case number 2013030937 (Second Case), naming parent on behalf of Student. District also filed a concurrent motion to consolidate the cases.
On March 26, 2013, Student filed a first “addendum” to his complaint in the First Case, alleging further claims and seeking further relief. The first addendum was treated as motion to amend Student’s complaint, and as of the date of this order, District’s time to respond to the motion to amend has not expired.
On March 27, 2013, Student filed, in the First Case, a notice of insufficiency (NOI) as to District’s complaint in the Second Case, which notice was incorrectly labeled as a second “addendum” to Student’s complaint. District’s complaint in the Second Case was found insufficiently pleaded by order dated March 29, 2013, and District was granted 14 days leave to amend or its complaint would be dismissed.
Student’s second addendum also contained opposition to District’s motion to consolidate the First Case and Second Case, and was considered.
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].)
In the First case, Student is in the process of seeking leave to amend his complaint to allege additional claims and to seek additional relief against District. In the Second Case, District’s complaint has been found to be insufficiently pleaded, and District’s complaint will be dismissed if District does not timely file an amended complaint. At this point in time, the two cases are far from being at issue and it cannot be determined whether there are common issues of law or fact, or whether judicial economy will be promoted by consolidation.
Accordingly, District’s motion to consolidate is denied as premature.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 29, 2013 /s/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings