California OAH special education order · August 28, 2014
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2014071037 · ALJ Bob N. Varma
OAH denied Oakland's renewed continuance request as premature because the other hearing its counsel cited had not started and might not run into this case's September 9, 2014 hearing date.
This case went to decision
Student v. Oakland Unified School District: Oakland Unified must reimburse $44,449.91 for residential placement after failing to assess and serve a student's mental health needs. (2014)
Summary
Oakland asked to continue the hearing because its counsel had a conflicting expedited hearing in another case, and Student opposed. OAH denied that request because the expedited part of the other case had been resolved. In its reply, Oakland raised a new conflict: a different hearing set to start September 2, 2014, that might run into this case's September 9 start date. OAH treated the reply as a renewed request and denied it as premature, because that hearing had not begun and an actual conflict was uncertain, but said Oakland could ask again if a real conflict arises.
Why it matters
OAH disfavors continuances because of the 45-day timeline and will not grant one based on a speculative scheduling conflict for counsel. A party must show an actual conflict before OAH will move hearing dates.
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
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. 2014071037 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 25, 2014, the Oakland Unified School District filed a request to continue the dates in this matter on the grounds that its counsel was unavailable due to a conflicting expedited hearing in Office of Administrative Hearings Case No. 2014080302. On August 28, 2014, Student filed an opposition. Shortly thereafter, OAH denied Oakland’s request because the expedited portion of OAH Case No. 2014080302 had been resolved and a conflict no longer existed. Subsequent to that Order, Oakland filed a reply to Student’s opposition. In the reply Oakland raised a new ground, a potentially conflicting hearing in another matter. As this is a new ground for a continuance request, OAH will treat it as a renewed request to continue.
A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of 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 the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution 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. All prehearing conference and hearing dates are confirmed and shall proceed as calendared. Oakland now contends that its counsel has a conflicting hearing in OAH Case No. 2014020175, which is set to begin hearing on September 2, 2014, and may continue into September 9, 2014, when the hearing in the instant matter is to start. At this time, the hearing in OAH Case No. 2014020175 has not commenced and it is unclear if it will in fact continue into September 9, 2014.
Therefore, Oakland’s request is premature and is denied. Should OAH Case No.
2014020175 become an actual conflict, Oakland may renew its request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 28, 2014
/S/
BOB N. VARMA
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings