California OAH special education order · August 8, 2014
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2014080219 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH denied Arcadia's last-minute motion to consolidate its new assessment case with Student's earlier case, finding consolidation would delay or complicate Student's hearing set to begin days later.
This case went to decision
Student v. Arcadia Unified School District: Arcadia Unified had no duty to assess or offer FAPE to a student still enrolled in a charter school; all claims denied. (2014)
Summary
Arcadia filed its own due process case about an assessment plan the day after OAH denied its request to continue Student's hearing. Arcadia then moved to consolidate that case with Student's case, which had been pending almost two months and was set for hearing the following week. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion because the issues were not identical, consolidation would complicate or delay Student's hearing, and Student is entitled to a timely decision; it also noted Arcadia waited until the 11th hour.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a late-filed case and a consolidation motion to get around a denied continuance. OAH protects a student's right to a prompt hearing, especially when the district waited until just before trial to act.
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:
ARCADIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH CASE NO. 2014080219
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On June 16, 2014, Student’s parents on behalf of Student (Student) filed a request for due process hearing in OAH case number 2014060827 (First Case), naming the Arcadia Unified School District (Arcadia).
On August 5, 2014, Arcadia filed a request for due process hearing in OAH case number 2014080219 (Second Case), naming Student.
On August 5, 2014, Arcadia filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case. On August 7, 2014, Student filed an opposition to that motion.
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].)
The First Case has been pending for almost two months and is scheduled to start hearing next Tuesday, August 12, 2014. The prehearing conference in that case was held on August 4, 2014. During that prehearing conference, OAH denied Arcadia’s request for a continuance of the hearing. The day after that prehearing conference, Arcadia filed the Second Case and sought consolidation. The issue in the Second Case involves an assessment plan that was offered to Student’s parents after the First Case was filed.
The interests of justice and judicial economy would not be served by consolidating the cases. The issues in the two cases are not identical. Consolidation would either complicate the First Case or delay the hearing in that case and leave Student without the rapid hearing contemplated by special education law. Student is entitled to a timely decision on the First Case. If Arcadia truly felt a consolidated case was necessary, it should not have waited until the 11th hour to take action.
ORDER
1. Arcadia’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
2. All dates previously set for hearing in both the First Case and Second Case shall
remain as currently scheduled.
DATE: August 8, 2014
/S/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings