California OAH special education order · May 29, 2015

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration, and Granting in Part Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2015020856 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi

OAH granted Sequoia's reconsideration request because its special education director would be on vacation, but moved the hearing only to July 2015, ruling that summer break is not good cause for a continuance.

Granted in part Reconsideration

This case went to decision

Student v. Sequoia Union High School District: Sequoia Union High School District must reimburse $76,438.62, two-thirds of Alpine Academy costs; its 2014-2015 offer was upheld. (2015)

Summary

Sequoia asked to move the June 22, 2015 hearing to September 2015 because its Director of Special Education would be on vacation and because of summer break. Parent did not oppose. OAH treated the motion as a request for reconsideration and granted it based on the new fact of the director's vacation. It then continued the hearing only to July 7, 2015, ruling that summer break is not good cause, the IDEA does not pause due process hearings for summer recess, and the parties' agreement to a later date is not enough on its own.

Why it matters

OAH will not push hearings past summer just because school is out or because both sides agree. Parties who want a continuance need specific good cause backed by detailed declarations, and they can subpoena witnesses who are away for the summer.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11521
Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
34 C.F.R. § 300.515
Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192

Topics

reconsideration continuance summer break good cause witness unavailability

Order details

OAH case number: 2015020856
Order date: May 29, 2015
Order type: Reconsideration
Ruling: Granted in part
Administrative law judge: Theresa Ravandi
Moving party: District
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Sequoia Union High School District
Student's counsel: Not stated
District's counsel: Not stated
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

April 6, 2015: Hearing set for April 29-30, 2015; telephonic prehearing conference set for April 17, 2015. (PDF)
April 17, 2015: Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Continuance Requests and Setting Prehearing Conferen
May 29, 2015: Order Granting Request for Reconsideration, and Granting in Part Request for Continuance
June 10, 2015: Order Partially Granting Request for Continuance and Setting Prehearing Conference and Hearing Dates
June 16, 2015: Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
June 29, 2015: Order Denying Request for Reconsideration
June 29, 2015: Order Denying District's Peremptory Challenge
June 29, 2015: PHC order sets July 13, 2015 hearing, frames six issues, and allows telephonic testimony for seven witnesses. (PDF)
Decision (2015-09-28)

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:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015020856 v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION, AND

SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR

DISTRICT. CONTINUANCE

On April 17, 2015, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order following prehearing conference granting a continuance of this matter to June 22, 2015. On May 28, 2015, Sequoia Union High School District filed a motion to continue this matter until September 2015, due to the unavailability of its Special Education Director and summer break. This motion is treated as a request for reconsideration. On May 29, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student, filed a non-opposition to Sequoia’s request.

APPLICABLE LAW

Reconsideration The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)

Continuance A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receiving notice of the due process complaint 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).) The Office of Administrative Hearings considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including proximity to 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 continuance’s impact 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).)

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Sequoia alleges one new fact in support of the request reconsideration, namely, that its Director of Special Education is unavailable for hearing due to a vacation the week of June 22, 2015. Therefore, the request for reconsideration is granted.

On reconsideration, Sequoia has established good cause to continue the hearing which is currently scheduled to begin on June 22, 2015, because of the unavailability of the special education director. Sequoia alleges generally that it seeks a continuance of this matter until September because Student will suffer no prejudice from such a delay and agrees to a September hearing date, and Sequoia cannot proceed sooner due to summer break.

Summer break does not constitute good cause for a continuance. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not suspend due process hearings for summer recess.

To do so would bring special education proceedings to a halt for approximately three months every year. Clearly this is not the intent of the speedy resolution mandate. The parties have available to them the power of the subpoena to compel the attendance of their respective witnesses. That the parties agree to continue this matter until September 2015, does not constitute good cause. 1 Accordingly, Sequoia’s request for a further continuance is granted, but not for the period of time requested. All dates are vacated. This matter will proceed to hearing as follows:

Should either party seek to raise grounds for a continuance other than summer break, they are advised to submit detailed declarations under penalty of perjury providing specific information as to why good cause exists, and consult as to specific available dates.

Prehearing Conference: June 29, 2015, at 1:00 p.m.

Due Process Hearing: July 7, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., July 8-9, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.; July 14, 2015, at 9:30 a.m., and July 15, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., and continuing day to day Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the ALJ.