California OAH special education order · August 1, 2014

Order Denying Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2013090347 · ALJ Joy Redmon

OAH denied a second joint continuance request. The case had been pending since September 2013, and the parties waited about two months after receiving the hearing dates to raise the district counsel's later-arising scheduling conflict.

Denied Scheduling and continuances

This case went to decision

Student v. Pajaro Valley Unified School District: Pajaro Valley Unified must reimburse Chartwell tuition and mileage for a late IEP meeting and a missing general education teacher; other claims denied. (2014)

Summary

Both parties jointly asked again to continue the due process hearing because Pajaro's counsel had a conflict with another OAH case. OAH had already denied an earlier joint request. OAH denied this one too, finding no good cause. The case had been pending since September 2013, the conflicting case was not filed until May 2014, and the parties waited until July 9, 2014 to ask for a continuance even though the scheduling order was served in May 2014.

Why it matters

Even when both sides agree, OAH may refuse to continue a long-pending case, especially if the request is late. Parties should raise scheduling conflicts as soon as hearing dates are set.

Key authority cited

34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (f)
Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c), (d)

Topics

continuance joint request good cause attorney conflict delay

Order details

OAH case number: 2013090347
Order date: August 1, 2014
Order type: Scheduling and continuances
Ruling: Denied
Administrative law judge: Joy Redmon
Moving party: Student and District (joint request)
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Pajaro Valley Unified School District
Student's counsel: Not stated
District's counsel: Not stated
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

January 21, 2014: Joint continuance granted; prehearing conference set March 17, 2014; hearing reset to March 25, 2014. (PDF)
March 14, 2014: Unopposed motion to amend granted; nonpublic school placement issue added and timelines reset. (PDF)
April 2, 2014: Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency
April 30, 2014: Joint continuance request denied; all prehearing conference and hearing dates proceed as calendared. (PDF)
May 2, 2014: Order Granting District's Peremptory Challenge
May 2, 2014: Unopposed second amendment conditionally granted; hearing reset to August 26-28, 2014, if amended complaint is timely filed. (PDF)
July 10, 2014: Order Denying Request for Continuance
August 1, 2014: Order Denying Request for Continuance
August 14, 2014: PHC rescheduled to August 22, 2014; erroneous August 20 mediation vacated. (PDF)
August 22, 2014: Prehearing order sets issues and an August 26-28, 2014 hearing; parties must narrow witness lists. (PDF)
Decision (2014-10-28)

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. 2013090347 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE

PAJARO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On July 9, 2014, the parties submitted a joint request to continue the due process hearing in this matter. On July 10, 2014, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an order denying the request, in part because this case had been pending for nearly ten months.

On July 9, 2014, the parties submitted another joint request for continuance. The parties assert good cause exists because Pajaro Valley Unified School District’s (Pajaro’s) counsel is unavailable due to a conflicting OAH case.

A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receiving the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R.

§ 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include party, counsel, or essential witness unavailability due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; attorney substitution when it is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date;

previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings;

whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

OAH has reviewed the request for good cause and considered all relevant facts and circumstances. The request is:

Denied. This case was filed in September of 2013. The case creating Pajaro’s counsel’s conflict was not filed until May 2014. Further, OAH served the scheduling order with the present dates for hearing in May 2014, and the parties waited until July 9, 2014, to request a continuance. Due to the length of time this case has been pending, good cause is not established for a continuance. All prehearing conference and hearing dates are confirmed and shall proceed as calendared.