California OAH special education order · June 5, 2015

Order Denying Motion to Consolidate

OAH Case No. 2015031017 · ALJ Marian H. Tully

OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases against Long Beach Unified because the independent evaluation claim and the later graduation claim shared no common questions of law or fact.

Denied Consolidation

Summary

Student asked OAH to consolidate a March 2015 case about District's failure to fund requested independent educational evaluations with a May 2015 case challenging District's decision that Student had met graduation requirements and would exit special education. District objected. OAH denied consolidation because the cases raised separate issues arising about a year apart, had little overlap in witnesses or documents, and combining them would delay resolution of the first case.

Why it matters

Filing two complaints by the same family against the same district is not enough for consolidation; OAH looks for real overlap in issues, witnesses, and evidence and will not delay an older, simpler case to join a newer one. Parents who want claims heard together may need to amend the first complaint instead.

Key authority cited

Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)

Topics

consolidation independent educational evaluation graduation exit from special education judicial economy

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. 2015031017 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On March 19, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015031017 (Student’s First Case), naming Long Beach Unified School District (District).

On May 28, 2015, Student filed another Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015051048 (Student’s Second Case), naming District.

On May 28, 2015, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s First Case with Student’s Second Case.

On June 3, 2015, District filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that Student’s First Case and Student’s Second Case do not involve common questions of law and/or fact and consolidation would significantly increase the amount of time needed for the single issue alleged in Student’s First Case.

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, Student’s First Case and Student’s Second Case do not involve a common question of law or fact. Student’s First Case alleges Student requested independent educational evaluations on May 1, 2014, and District failed to provide independent educational evaluations in all areas requested. The issues in Student’s Second Case are whether Student actually completed requirements to graduate with a high school diploma, and whether Student was denied the benefits of an actual high school education when District notified Parent on May 15, 2015, that Student met graduation requirements, was expected to earn a regular high school diploma and exit special education on June 17, 2015. The two complaints state discreet and separate issues. The allegations in Student’s Second Case arise approximately a year after the events alleged in Student’s First Case. There is little potential overlap in the witnesses or documentary evidence. Moreover, consolidation would unnecessarily delay resolution of Student’s First Case. Accordingly, the interests of judicial economy are not served by consolidation of Student’s two cases.

Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied. The matter will proceed as scheduled.