California OAH special education order · June 4, 2014

Order Following Prehearing Conference and Consolidating Matters

OAH Case No. 2014040269, 2014050692 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones

OAH consolidated Parent's case with District's case over District's objection, because both turn on whether District's occupational therapy services and evaluation were appropriate and whether Student gets an independent evaluation.

Ruling Consolidation

Summary

At a prehearing conference in District's case, which Parent did not attend, the ALJ raised consolidation on her own motion. District objected, but the ALJ joined Parent's earlier-filed case with District's later case. Both cases share common questions of law and fact: Student seeks an independent occupational therapy evaluation, and District seeks a ruling that its own occupational therapy evaluation was appropriate. The ALJ vacated the dates in District's case and adopted the dates from Parent's case with one added hearing day. The 45-day decision timeline runs from the filing date of Parent's case.

Why it matters

When a district files its own case to defend an evaluation after a parent has already asked for an independent evaluation, OAH may combine the two cases even over the district's objection. In that situation, the parent's earlier filing date controls the timeline.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)

People named in the order

Miguel Rojas, Spanish interpreter

Topics

consolidation independent educational evaluation occupational therapy self-represented parent decision timeline

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. 2014040269

V. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING

CONFERENCE AND

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL CONSOLIDATING MATTERS

DISTRICT.

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT, OAH CASE NO. 2014050692

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.

On June 2, 2014, a recorded, telephonic prehearing conference (PHC) in OAH Case No. 2014050692 was held before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Elsa H. Jones, Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Lauri A. Arrowsmith, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Los Angeles Unified School District (District). There was no appearance by Parent, on behalf of Student. Parent is self-represented, and the ALJ made two separate telephonic attempts to obtain Parent’s appearance. During each such attempt, Miguel Rojas, Spanish interpreter, left voicemail messages in Spanish for Parent. Mr. Rojas remained on the telephone during the PHC, in the event that Parent decided to participate.

Based on discussion with District’s counsel, the ALJ issues the following Order:

1. Consolidation. On April 4, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for

due process hearing in OAH Case No. 2014040269 (First Case), naming the District. On May 14, 2014, District filed this request for due process hearing (OAH Case No.

2014050692) (Second Case).

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].)

Here, the First Case and the Second Case involve common questions of law and fact, specifically whether the District provided appropriate occupational therapy services to Student so as to meet Student’s needs. As part of his remedy in the First Case, Student seeks an independent occupational therapy evaluation; in the Second Case, District seeks an order that its occupational therapy evaluation was appropriate, and that Student is not entitled to an independent occupational therapy evaluation. Accordingly, the ALJ, on her own motion, over the District’s objection, orders the First Case and the Second Case consolidated. (Gov.

Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a).)

2. Mediation, PHC, and Hearing Dates. The Second Case is continued, and all

dates currently set in the Second Case are vacated. The mediation, PHC, and hearing dates in these consolidated cases shall be those that are currently set in the First Case, except that an additional hearing day shall be added, as follows:

Mediation: August 19, 2014, at 9:00 a.m.

Telephonic PHC: September 19, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. OAH will initiate the conference call.

Due Process Hearing: September 29-October 2, 2014, and continuing day to day thereafter, Monday through Thursday as needed, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. The first day of hearing shall commence at 1:30 p.m.; all other days shall commence at 9:00 a.m., unless otherwise ordered.

3. Decision Timeline. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the

consolidated cases shall be based on the filing date in OAH Case Number 2014040269 (First Case).

4. Settlement. The parties are encouraged to continue working together

to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately should they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing. In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880.