California OAH special education order · January 15, 2014
Order Denying District's Motion to Bifurcate
OAH Case No. 2014010199 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied District's motion to split eligibility and FAPE into separate hearings, because District chose to bring both issues in one complaint and two hearings would not serve judicial economy.
This case went to decision
Clovis Unified School District v. Student: Clovis Unified did not legally exit a student from special education based on her certificate of proficiency, ALJ rules. (2014)
Summary
District filed a due process complaint raising two issues. The first was whether Student, who had turned 18 and received a diploma or its equivalent, was still eligible for special education in 2013-2014. The second was whether, if eligible, District offered a FAPE. District asked to bifurcate these into two hearings, but supported the motion with no declaration or authenticated evidence, and Student did not respond. The ALJ ruled that bifurcation is within the judge's discretion when it promotes judicial economy. Because District could have filed separate complaints but chose a single complaint, two hearings would not be efficient, so the motion was denied.
Why it matters
A party that puts several issues in one complaint should expect them heard together. OAH will split a hearing only when doing so actually saves time and resources, and motions should be backed by declarations or evidence.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (b)
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:
CLOVIS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH CASE NO. 2014010199
v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO BIFURCATE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On January 7, 2014, District filed a complaint for due process and a separate motion to bifurcate. The complaint contained two issues: 1) whether Student was eligible for special education services in the 2013-2014 school year, and 2) if eligible, whether District offered Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE). The complaint alleged that Student turned 18 years old during the 2012-2013 school year, that she received a high school diploma or its equivalent, and that she is no longer eligible for special education services, despite her request for services and supports in or about August 2013. District’s motion to bifurcate requests two separate hearings, one on the issue of eligibility, and one on the issue of FAPE. The motion was not supported by any authenticated evidence or a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing evidentiary basis for the assertions upon which it based its motion. OAH did not receive a response to the motion from Student.
Federal and state laws pertaining to special education due process administrative proceedings do not contain a specific reference to the procedure for bifurcating issues at 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).)
Here, District could have, but did not, file separate complaints. Having chosen to allege the issues in a single complaint, bifurcating the issues and holding two separate hearings is not conducive to judicial economy or efficient and expeditious use of judicial resources. Accordingly, District’s motion to bifurcate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 15, 2014 /s/
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings