California OAH special education order · June 2, 2015

Order Denying Joint Second Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2015031257 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee

OAH denied the parties' joint second continuance request because failing to settle at mediation is not good cause, especially after a prior continuance had already pushed the hearing to July 2015.

Denied Scheduling and continuances

This case went to decision

Student v. Whittier City School District et al.: Whittier City School District and WACSEP prevail on all claims over special day class placement, behavior services, and private school services. (2016)

Summary

Student and Whittier City School District jointly asked OAH for a second continuance of the prehearing conference and due process hearing dates. The second continuance would have pushed the hearing more than 120 days past the original hearing date. OAH denied the request because the only reason given was that the parties had not reached a settlement at mediation on May 28, 2015. That is not a significant, unanticipated change that leaves the case unready for hearing. The parties may resubmit the request with a real showing of good cause, or with agreed hearing dates within 90 days of the initial hearing date.

Why it matters

Even when both sides agree to a continuance, OAH may deny it. Failing to settle at mediation is not good cause, and the parties should be ready for hearing on schedule unless they can point to a real, unanticipated problem.

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), (d)

Topics

continuance good cause joint request mediation hearing timeline

Order details

OAH case number: 2015031257
Order date: June 2, 2015
Order type: Scheduling and continuances
Ruling: Denied
Administrative law judge: Alexa J. Hohensee
Moving party: Student and District (joint request)
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Whittier City School District
Student's counsel: Not stated
District's counsel: Not stated
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

April 2, 2015: Case dismissed as to Los Angeles County Office of Education only, at Student's request. (PDF)
June 2, 2015: Order Denying Joint Second Request for Continuance
September 28, 2015: Unopposed continuance granted for Parent's medical condition; hearing reset to January 6, 2016; issues set. (PDF)
December 21, 2015: Prehearing order sets January 6, 2016 hearing and defines issues on two 2014 IEPs. (PDF)
January 8, 2016: Issues for due process hearing restated and confirmed in writing. (PDF)
Decision (2016-03-21)

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. 2015031257

v. ORDER DENYING JOINT SECOND

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

WHITTIER CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On June 2, 2015, the parties filed a joint second request to continue the prehearing conference and due process hearing dates in this matter.

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:

Denied. All hearing dates and timelines shall proceed as calendared. Here, after already having requested and received a continuance to mutually agreeable hearing dates in July 2015, the parties have requested a second continuance of the hearing dates in excess of 120 days from the initial hearing date without a showing of good cause. The only reason stated for the second continuance request is the parties’ failure to reach a settlement agreement during mediation on May 28, 2015, which does not constitute a significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case will not be ready for hearing. The parties may re-submit the request to continue with a sufficient showing of good cause, or if they have agreed upon hearing dates within 90 days of the initial hearing date.