California OAH special education order · October 23, 2015
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Amend and Denying Motion to Continue as Moot
OAH Case No. 2015071255, 2015100591 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because they share common questions about District's assessment and Student's IEE request, granted Student's unopposed amendment, and denied District's continuance as moot.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Dieguito Union High School District (consolidated): San Dieguito Union must reassess a student with autism after unsafe incidents at Oak Crest; placement claims denied. (2016)
Summary
District moved to consolidate its due process case with Student's earlier case and to continue the hearing date, and Student did not oppose. Student separately moved, without opposition, to file a first amended complaint. OAH consolidated the cases because both involve District's reliance on its prior assessment for the IEP offer and Student's later request for an independent educational evaluation, which avoids duplicate evidence and inconsistent decisions. OAH granted the amendment and reset all timelines from the date of the order, so it denied the continuance request as moot.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case to defend an assessment after a parent requests an IEE, OAH will usually combine it with the parent's pending case. Filing an amended complaint restarts the 45-day timeline, which can make a separate continuance request unnecessary.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)
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. 2015071255 v.
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015100591
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. CONSOLIDATE AND MOTION TO
AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO
CONTINUE AS MOOT
On July 21, 2015, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in Office of Administrative Hearings Case Number 2015071255 (Student’s Case), naming San Dieguito Union High School District.
On October 15, 2015, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH Case Number 20151009591 (District’s Case), naming Student.
On October 15, 2015, District filed a Motion to Consolidate District’s Case with Student’s Case and to continue the due process hearing date set in District’s Case.
Student did not oppose District’s Motion to Consolidate and Continue.
On October 21, 2015, Student filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Student’s First Amended Complaint.
District did not oppose Student’s Motion to Amend.
APPLICABLE LAW
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].)
An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
A due process hearing must be held, and a decision rendered, within 45 days of receipt of the complaint, unless a continuance is granted for good cause. (Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f) & 56505, subd. (f)(1)(C)(3).)
DISCUSSION
Here, the Student’s Case, as amended, and District’s Case involve common questions of law or fact, specifically, District’s reliance on prior District’s assessment as a basis for an individualized educational program and resulting offer of a free, appropriate public education, and Student’s subsequent request for an independent educational evaluation. Student does not oppose the motion. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because it will prevent duplication of evidence and the possibility of inconsistent decisions. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
Additionally, the motion to amend is timely and is granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
District’s motion to continue the hearing is moot as Student’s filing of a first amended complaint will reset the timeline.
ORDER
1. District’s Motion to Consolidate is granted, consolidating Student’s Case, OAH
Case Number 2015071255, with District’s Case, OAH Case Number 20151009591.
2. Student’s Motion to Amend the Complaint and file a first amended complaint is
granted. The Amended Complaint is deemed filed as of the date of this Order.
3. All dates previously set in OAH Case Numbers 2015071255 and 20151009591
are vacated.
4. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be
based on the date of the filing of Student’s first amended complaint in OAH Case Number 2015071255.
5. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
DATE: October 23, 2015
/S/
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings