California OAH special education order · June 3, 2015
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2015060102 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with District's earlier assessment case because the cases involve different issues, witnesses, and evidence, and consolidation would add little judicial economy.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint challenging District's October 2014 IEP offer, then moved to consolidate it with District's earlier case. District's case seeks a ruling that its 2012 assessments were appropriate, so it need not fund independent assessments, and asks to assess Student without parental consent. District objected because its hearing was set to begin June 8, 2015, had already been continued at length, and Student's issues were broader. OAH denied consolidation: the cases are only marginally interdependent, and Student's case involves many more witnesses, exhibits, and issues. Some overlapping witnesses and a possible effect of one outcome on the other were not enough to justify combining them.
Why it matters
A parent's later-filed case will not automatically be joined to a district's pending case just because some witnesses overlap or one result may affect the other, especially when the district's hearing is imminent. Filing late, here 30 minutes before the district's prehearing conference, makes consolidation harder to win.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)
People named in the order
- Phillip W. Van Allsburg, Student's attorney
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2015060102
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On January 15, 2015, Garden Grove Unified School District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings in OAH Case Number 2015010573 (District’s Case), naming Student. On June 1, 2015, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH Case Number 2015060102 (Student’s Case), naming District. 1 On June 1, 2015, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate District’s Case with Student’s Case. On June 2, 2015, District filed an objection to consolidation on the grounds that:
District’s Case is scheduled to begin hearing on June 8, 2015; hearing in District’s Case has already been subject to a lengthy continuance; and the issues in Student’s Complaint are both legally and factually broader than those in District’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
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, District’s Case and Student’s Case involve important different issues. Although the issues in the two cases are marginally interdependent as Student challenges District’s Student’s legal counsel, Phillip W. Van Allsburg, filed Student’s complaint 30 minutes before the prehearing conference in District’s case.
December 2012 triennial multi-disciplinary assessment and assessment report 2, on balance the two cases require significantly different witnesses and evidence. In District’s case, District seeks a ruling that its 2012 assessments were procedurally appropriate so as to not require District to fund independent educational assessments at public expense, and its request to assess Student without parental consent. Student’s case challenges whether the individualized education program offered by District in October 2014 provided Student with a free appropriate public education. While the outcome of District’s Case may impact the outcome of Student’s Case, that relationship alone is not sufficient grounds to consolidate the cases.
Student asserts that both cases involve common witnesses and evidence. That alone is not sufficient grounds for consolidation. While there may be some witnesses that will be necessary at both hearings, overall there are many more witnesses, exhibits, and issues that are involved in the second hearing, such that there is minimal judicial economy to be found in consolidating the cases. Accordingly, consolidation is denied.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2015010573 (District’s Case)
are confirmed. Hearing shall begin on June 8, 2015.
DATE: June 3, 2015
/S/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings Student’s challenge to the December 2012 assessment in Student’s complaint is subject to challenge for being barred by the two-year statute of limitations. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C).)