California OAH special education order · October 14, 2014
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2014100434, 2014080290 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH consolidated Student's new complaint with District's earlier case over District's objection to delay, because Student's claims mirror the defenses to District's offer and would use the same witnesses and exhibits.
Summary
District filed for due process in August 2014 to show that its offer of placement and services provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment. That case had already been continued once so Parents could hire counsel. Just before the prehearing conference, Student filed a separate complaint and asked to combine the two cases. District opposed because combining them would delay its hearing again, but the ALJ granted the motion. The ALJ found the cases shared common questions of law and fact and would use the same witnesses and exhibits, so the earlier case's dates were vacated, Student's case became the lead case, and its filing date now sets the 45-day decision timeline.
Why it matters
When a district files first to defend its IEP offer, a parent's newly retained attorney can file the family's own complaint and ask to consolidate. OAH may combine the cases even if that delays the district's hearing, when the parent's claims mirror the defense to the district's case.
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2014100434 v.
BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
BONITA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2014080290 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On August 5, 2014, Bonita Unified School District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in Office of Administrative Hearings case number 2014080290 (First Case), naming Parent on Behalf of Student. On August 29, 2014, the First Case was continued at request of Student to allow Parents to retain counsel. The First Case’s prehearing conference was continued to October 13, 2014, with hearing dates of October 20 through 24, 2014.
On October 10, 2014, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2014100434 (Second Case), naming District. On October 10, 2014, Student also filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case.
Administrative law judge Clifford H. Woosley convened the prehearing conference in the First Case on October 13, 2014. At that time, the Student’s motion to consolidate was discussed and argued.
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].)
District opposes Student’s motion to consolidate because consolidation would again delay the hearing on District’s complaint and the sole issue of whether its offer of placement and services to Student is a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. District has diligently prosecuted its complaint and opposes any further delay of hearing.
Student’s counsel is newly retained, having noticed representation but one week ago.
Here, the issues in Student’s complaint are the very same as those that Student would assert in defense of District’s complaint. Therefore, the First Case and Second Case involve common questions of law and fact. Consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the same witnesses and exhibits will be utilized in both matters. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2014080290 [First Case] are
vacated.
3. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be
based on the date of the filing of the complaint in OAH Case Number 2014100434 [Second Case].
4. The lead case for purpose of all further filings shall be in the Second Case, OAH
Case Number 2014100434.
5. The dates of mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing are those set forth in
the Second Case’s October 13, 2014 scheduling order.
DATE: October 14, 2014
/ S/
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings