California OAH special education order · March 23, 2015
Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2015030589, 2015020590 · ALJ Margaret M. Broussard
OAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's and Antioch's due process cases because both turn on Student's continued special education eligibility and share common witnesses.
This case went to decision
Student v. Antioch Unified School District: Antioch Unified must assess student's health after failing to answer a January 2015 assessment request; home/hospital claim denied. (2015)
Summary
Antioch filed a due process case first. Student then filed a separate case against Antioch and moved to consolidate the two, and Antioch did not oppose. At a telephonic prehearing conference, the ALJ granted consolidation because both cases involve the same parties and the common question of Student's continued eligibility for special education, and the same witnesses would testify in both. Student's case was made the primary case, the dates in Antioch's case were vacated, and the 45-day decision timeline now runs from the filing of Student's complaint.
Why it matters
When a district files first, a parent can file their own case and ask to consolidate. The parent's later-filed case can become the primary case, which resets the hearing schedule and the decision timeline to the parent's filing.
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. 2015030589 v.
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2015020590 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING
CONFERENCE AND GRANTING
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
On March 23, 2015, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Margaret M. Broussard, Office of Administrative Hearings in OAH case number 2015020590 (first case). David Mishook, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Antioch Unified School District. Nicole Hodge Amey, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. The PHC was recorded.
Based on discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following orders:
1. Motion for Consolidation On March 13, 2015, Student filed a due process
hearing request naming Antioch, designated as OAH case 2015030589 (second case). On the same date, Student filed a motion to consolidate first case with second case. Antioch did not oppose consolidation of the cases.
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, Student’s continued eligibility for special education. Antioch 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.
a. Second case, OAH case number 2015030589, will be the primary case.
b. All dates previously set in first case, OAH case number 2015020590 (first case)
are vacated.
c. 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 2015030589 (second case). The case will proceed on the dates currently set in the second case.
2. Other Matters: All other matters relevant to preparing for hearing, including
clarification of issues and identification of witnesses and exhibits, will be addressed at the next PHC.
3. Settlement: Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until a letter of
withdrawal, or a request for dismissal with the signature page of the signed agreement has been received by OAH. In the event a settlement agreement is executed subject to board approval, the parties may request to continue the hearing and set a telephonic status conference call following the date anticipated for board approval. The parties should otherwise plan to attend the scheduled PHC and the hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ or ordered by OAH.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 23, 2015
/ S/
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings