California OAH special education order · March 12, 2015
Order Granting District's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2014120050, 2015030389 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH consolidated Student's child find and eligibility case with District's case defending its assessments, because both depend on whether the same speech-language and occupational therapy assessments were legally appropriate.
This case went to decision
Student v. Hacienda La Puente Unified School District: Hacienda La Puente Unified prevails: no child find violation, and high-achieving third grader not eligible under autism. (2015)
Summary
District moved to consolidate Student's case alleging child find and eligibility failures with District's own case seeking to show its speech-language and occupational therapy assessments were appropriate so it need not fund independent educational evaluations. Student did not oppose and asked for a short continuance. OAH granted consolidation because both cases turn on the same assessments and the same evidence, which serves judicial economy. OAH also continued Student's hearing to the Second Case's dates and kept the 45-day decision timeline tied to Student's original filing date.
Why it matters
If a parent asks for an independent evaluation while a child find or eligibility case is already pending, OAH will likely combine the district's assessment-defense case with the parent's case. In that combined hearing, whether the district's assessments were appropriate will be decided once, for both cases.
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. 2014120050 v.
HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
HACIENDA LA PUENTE UNIFIED OAH Case No. 2015030389
SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v. ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On November 19, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2014120050 (First Case), naming Hacienda La Puente Unified School District. The First Case had a prehearing conference 1 on March 6, 2015, and is scheduled for hearing on March 16, 17, 18 and 19, 2015.
On March 6, 2015, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015030389 (Second Case), naming Student. The Second Case is set for mediation on March 19, 2015, a prehearing conference on March 23, 2015, and hearing on March 30, 2015.
On March 6, 2015, District filed a Motion to Consolidate the First Case with the Second Case. On March 10, 2015, Student filed notice of non-opposition to District’s request to consolidate.
Consolidation The parties discussed District’s motion to consolidate at the prehearing conference but the administrative law judge could not make a ruling because the District had not yet filed its complaint and 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].)
Here, the First Case and Second Case involve common questions of law or fact. The First Case raises two issues: Did the District deny Student a free appropriate public education by failing to meet its child find obligations? Did District deny Student a FAPE when it failed to find Student eligible for special education, including at two individual education program meetings following assessments. In the Second Case, District seeks a determination that its speech-language and occupational therapy assessments were appropriate and that, therefore, the Student’s March 3, 2015, request for District to fund two independent education evaluations be denied.
The First Case’s issues require a determination that the District’s assessments were legally appropriate. In meeting a child find obligation, a district is to assess in all areas of suspected disability. Additionally, in determining eligibility, a district must utilize legally appropriate assessments. Thus, the legal appropriateness of the District’s assessments, upon which it relied in meeting its child find obligation and in determining Student’s ineligibility, must be determined in the First Case.
The Second Case requires determination of the legal appropriateness of the District’s speech-language and occupational therapy assessments, to find whether District must fund independent educational evaluations. Parents requested the independent evaluations in a letter dated March 3, 2015, to District. These same two assessments will be addressed in the First Case, requiring the same testimonial and documentary evidence to address the exact same issue.
Since the two cases involve common questions of fact and law, and consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy, the motion is granted.
Scheduled Hearing Dates In the notice of non-opposition, Student requested a short continuance of the hearing and waived mediation. For purposes of this order, Student’s request is construed as a request to continue the dates in the First Case, filed by Student. Therefore, the hearing in the First Case is continued to the dates presently scheduled in the Second Case. 2 Should the parties desire a further continuance of the hearing dates set in the Second Case, they should agree upon continued dates and submit an appropriate stipulation requesting the continuance.
ORDER
1. District’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Student’s request for a continuance is granted and the hearing dates set in OAH Case
Number 2014120050 [First Case] are continued to the dates presently scheduled in the Second Case.
3. The presently scheduled mediation, prehearing conference and hearing dates, set in
the Second Case (OAH Case No. 2015030389), shall apply to these consolidated cases.
4. 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 2014120050 [First Case].
5. All further pleadings in these consolidated cases shall be filed in the First Case.
DATE: March 12, 2015
/ S/
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings