California OAH special education order · August 13, 2013
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2013080296 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate without prejudice as moot because Student's complaint had already been found insufficient; Student may move again after filing an amended complaint.
This case went to decision
Student v. Manteca Unified School District (consolidated): Manteca Unified wins all issues and may place student at Children's Home of Stockton without parent consent. (2013)
Summary
The District filed a due process case first. Student later filed his own complaint and asked OAH to combine it with the District's case. The same day OAH ruled on consolidation, it had already found Student's complaint insufficient after the District challenged it. Because of that, the consolidation motion was moot and was denied without prejudice, and Student may move to consolidate again if he files an amended complaint.
Why it matters
A motion to consolidate cannot go forward if the complaint behind it is found legally insufficient. Families should make sure their complaint is sufficient, or amend it, before relying on consolidation with a district's pending case.
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013080296
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On May 21, 2013, the Manteca Unified School District (District) filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2013050805 (First Case) naming Parent on behalf of Student as respondent.
On August 7, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2013080296 (Second Case), naming the District as respondent.
On August 7, 2013, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case.
On August 9, 2013, the District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint in the Second Case. On August 13, 2013, OAH issued an order finding Student’s complaint in the Second Case insufficient. Because the complaint in the Second Case has been determined insufficient, Student’s motion to consolidate cases is moot.
Should Student file an amended complaint in the Second Case, he is free to move to consolidate the two matters.
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].)
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied without prejudice.
Dated: August 13, 2013 /s/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings