California OAH special education order · February 26, 2015
Order Denying Student's Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2014090268, 2014090535 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH denied Student's opposed request to continue the hearing. Counsel's two expedited hearings could be worked around during the March 5 hearing, and the case had already been pending over four months.
This case went to decision
Student v. Huntington Beach Union High School District (consolidated): Huntington Beach Union High must reimburse up to $30,690 for private school and therapy after child find and counseling failures. (2015)
Summary
Student asked OAH to continue the prehearing conference and the due process hearing set for March 5, 2015. Student's counsel had two expedited hearings scheduled for March 10 and 12, 2015, and Student asked that the parties be ordered to agree on a new date within 90 days. Huntington Beach opposed the request, arguing it would cause unreasonable delay. OAH found no good cause: the case had been pending over four months with an earlier continuance and an amended complaint, and any conflicts with the expedited hearings could be handled during the hearing itself.
Why it matters
OAH treats continuances as disfavored and will look for other ways to handle scheduling conflicts. An attorney's conflicting hearings alone may not justify a delay, especially in a case that has already been continued.
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
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2014090268 v.
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH OAH Case No. 2014090535
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
v. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On February 24, 2015, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a request to continue the dates in this matter based upon counsel having two conflict on her schedule. On February 26, 2015, Huntington Beach filed an opposition to the request based upon unreasonable delay.
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 as good cause has not been established.
Student originally filed this matter on September 3, 2014. Huntington Beach filed their complaint on September 11, 2014. The two cases were consolidated by OAH on September 22, 2014. The matter was continued on October 8, 2014, pursuant to a joint request. On January 6, 2015, Student filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.
OAH granted that request and issued a new scheduling order on January 9, 2015. Thus, this matter has been pending over four months.
Student cites that his counsel is also scheduled for two expedited hearings on March 10 and 12, 2015. Student requests that the matter be continued and that OAH order the parties to meet to agree on a new hearing date within 90 days. As stated above, OAH looks to if see there are other available means to address the problem.
The hearing in this matter is scheduled to commence on March 5, 2015. Should either or both of the expedited hearings go forth, such conflicts can be resolved during the hearing.
Student’s request to continue the Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 26, 2015
/ S/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings