California OAH special education order · February 23, 2015

Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Request for Continuance and Setting Mediation, Prehearing Conference, and Due Process Hearing Dates

OAH Case No. 2015010878 · ALJ Caroline A. Zuk

OAH granted District's first continuance request over Student's objection because District's counsel had a confirmed conflict with another due process hearing, and reset mediation, the prehearing conference, and the hearing for March 2015.

Granted Prehearing conference orders

This case went to decision

Vista Unified School District v. Student: Vista Unified may not implement its January 2015 IEP without parent consent; the IEP met procedural rules but did not offer FAPE. (2015)

Summary

At a telephonic prehearing conference, District's first request to continue the hearing was considered. District's counsel had a calendar conflict with another due process hearing set for the same date. Student filed no written opposition but objected at the conference, saying Student had been treated unfairly by District and OAH in an earlier case. The ALJ confirmed the conflict, found good cause, and reset mediation for March 11, the prehearing conference for March 6, and the hearing for March 17-19, 2015. District also asked to move the mediation and hearing to a regional consortium office because of a superior court order restricting Student's father's access to District property, while Student asked to hold them at OAH. The ALJ directed the parties to file a written motion on location, and for now kept both at the District office.

Why it matters

A district's first continuance request based on a confirmed conflict with another hearing will usually be granted, even if a parent objects for unrelated reasons. A parent who wants to oppose a request or change the hearing location should put it in a written filing.

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(c)
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)

People named in the order

Bernadette Buckley, Spanish interpreter

Topics

continuance prehearing conference hearing location self-represented parent spanish interpreter calendar conflict

Order details

OAH case number: 2015010878
Order date: February 23, 2015
Order type: Prehearing conference orders
Ruling: Granted
Administrative law judge: Caroline A. Zuk
Moving party: District
Case filed by: District
Education agency: Vista Unified School District
Student's counsel: Parent (self-represented)
District's counsel: Tiffany Santos
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

February 23, 2015: Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Request for Continuance and Setting Mediation, Pr
March 9, 2015: Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Request to Change Location of Mediation and Due P
March 13, 2015: Unopposed continuance granted; hearing reset to May 19, 2015. (PDF)
March 17, 2015: Unopposed continuance granted; hearing reset to May 19, 2015, with prehearing conference on May 11. (PDF)
May 12, 2015: Prehearing conference continued to May 15, 2015 with Spanish interpreter; May 19-21 hearing dates unchanged. (PDF)
May 18, 2015: Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference
May 21, 2015: Hearing continued to June 3, 2015, for written closing arguments of up to 20 pages. (PDF)
Decision (2015-06-19)

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 Matter of:

VISTA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH CASE NO. 2015010878

v. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING

CONFERENCE AND GRANTING

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE AND

SETTING MEDIATION, PREHEARING

CONFERENCE, AND DUE PROCESS

HEARING DATES

On February 20, 2015, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Caroline A. Zuk, Office of Administrative Hearings. Tiffany Santos, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Vista Unified School District. Student’s mother appeared on behalf of Student. Spanish interpreter Bernadette Buckley participated in the conference call to translate for Student’s mother. The prehearing conference was recorded.

At the beginning of the prehearing conference, the parties discussed District’s pending request for a continuance of the due process hearing, which was filed and served on February 12, 2015. While Student’s mother recalled receiving documents from District, she was unable to read them because they were in English. Student did not file an opposition to the District’s request for a continuance.

The basis for District’s first request for a continuance is a calendar conflict involving another due process hearing scheduled to proceed on the same date as this matter (Case Number 2015010038). The ALJ confirmed that this calendar conflict existed at the time of the prehearing conference. Student opposed the continuance, because he contends that he was not treated fairly by District and the Office of Administrative Hearings in a previous due process hearing (Case Number 2013070169).

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:

Granted. All dates are vacated. This matter will be set as follows:

Mediation: March 11, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Prehearing Conference: March 6, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

Due Process Hearing: March 17-19, 2015, continuing day to day, Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. The hearing shall begin each day at 9:00 a.m. and end at 4:30 p.m. with the exception of March 17, 2015, on which day the hearing shall begin at 9:30 a.m., unless otherwise ordered.

During the conference, District requested that the mediation and hearing be held at the North Coastal Consortium for Special Education, 255 Pica Avenue, Suite 101, San Marcos, California 92069 instead of the District, because it had obtained an order in September 2014 from the San Diego Superior Court, restricting Student’s father’s access to District’s property. District has not filed a copy of the court order with OAH. Student requested that the mediation and hearing be held at the Office of Administrative Hearings. The parties were directed to file a motion to change the location of the mediation and due process hearing. As of the date of this Order, the mediation and due process hearing shall be held at Vista Unified School District, 1234 Arcadia Avenue, Vista, California 92084.