California OAH special education order · April 14, 2015
Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2014110367, 2015040472 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied Garvey School District's motion to consolidate its triennial assessment case with Student's FAPE case because the cases share no common questions of law or fact.
This case went to decision
Student v. Garvey School District: Garvey School District prevails; it had no duty to place or provide home instruction before learning the student left Alhambra. (2015)
Summary
District filed its own due process case seeking permission to assess Student for a triennial IEP under a March 3, 2015 assessment plan. It asked OAH to consolidate that case with Student's earlier case, arguing that its ability to assess was relevant to Student's placement. Student opposed, saying the new assessments had nothing to do with whether District provided a FAPE in the two years before Student filed in October 2014. OAH agreed with Student and denied consolidation, finding no common questions and noting that consolidation would improperly expand the hearing to events after Student's filing date.
Why it matters
A district cannot use consolidation to pull later disputes, such as a new assessment request, into a parent's case about past FAPE denials. OAH will keep the hearing focused on the time period the parent's complaint covers.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2014110367 v.
GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2015040472 v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On October 30, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2014110367 (Student’s Case), naming Garvey School District. Student’s Case had a prehearing conference on April 13, 2015, which continued the hearing to June 2, 3, and 4, 2015.
On April 13, 2015, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015040472 (District’s Case), naming Student. District’s Case is set for prehearing conference on May, 1, 2015, and hearing on May 7, 2015.
On April 13, 2015, District filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case. At the April 13, 2015 prehearing conference, Student argued in opposition to District’s request to consolidate.
Consolidation 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].)
In District’s Case, District seeks an Order allowing it to assess Student for a triennial IEP, as outlined in its proposed March 3, 2015, assessment plan. District asserts that consolidation is appropriate because District’s ability to assess is relevant to Student’s placement, which is an issue in the First Case. Student opposes consolidation because the triennial assessments are not relevant to whether the District provided Student with a FAPE for the two years before the October 2014 filing of Student’s complaint.
Here, Student’s Case and District’s Case do not involve common questions of law or fact. Student’s Case’s issues are related to District’s provision of home hospital services, placement in a nonpublic school, and fully assessing Student in all areas of suspected disability – before October 30, 2014. Therefore, the issue of whether the District may unilaterally assess Student, more than six months after Student’s Case was filed, does not further the interests of judicial economy by preventing inconsistent rulings or saving time. In fact, it would inappropriately expand the hearing to include considerations of events after Student’s Case’s filing.
ORDER
1. District’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
DATE: April 14, 2015
/S/
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings