California OAH special education order · February 2, 2015
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2014120778, 2015010664 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH consolidated Student's and San Francisco's due process cases because both involve Student's 2014-2015 assessment and common witnesses, and Student did not oppose; the District's later-filed case became primary.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Francisco Unified School District: San Francisco Unified must train Flynn staff on child find after serving a student under a 504 plan instead of an IEP. (2015)
Summary
San Francisco filed its own due process complaint and moved to consolidate it with Student's earlier complaint. Student did not respond. OAH granted the motion because both cases involve a common question about Student's assessment during the 2014-2015 school year, and consolidation saves time since the same witnesses will testify. San Francisco's case was made the primary case, all dates in Student's case were vacated, and the 45-day decision timeline now runs from the filing date of San Francisco's complaint.
Why it matters
If a family does not oppose consolidation, the district's later-filed case can become the primary case, which vacates the family's hearing dates and restarts the decision timeline from the district's filing date. Families who want to keep their original schedule should file a timely response to a consolidation motion.
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. 2014120778 v.
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015010664
DISTRICT,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
v. CONSOLIDATE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On December 12, 2014, Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) in Office of Administrative Hearings case number 2014120778 (first case), naming the San Francisco Unified School District, Antioch Unified School District, and the West Contra Costa County Unified School District as respondents. On January 28, 2015, Student’s request to dismiss Antioch and West Contra Costa was granted.
On January 21, 2015, San Francisco filed with OAH a complaint in OAH case number 2015010664 (second case), naming Student as respondent.
On January 21, 2015, San Francisco filed a motion to consolidate the first case with the second case. Student did not file a response to the motion.
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, subdivision (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 a common question of law or fact, specifically, the assessment of Student during the 2014-2015 school year. Student did not oppose the motion. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because both cases require the testimony of common witnesses. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
ORDER
1. San Francisco Unified School District’s motion to consolidate is granted.
OAH case number 2015010664 (second case) will be the primary case.
2. All dates previously set in OAH case number 2014230778 (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 2015010664 (second case). The case will proceed on the dates currently set in the second case.
DATE: February 2, 2015
/S/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings