California OAH special education order · November 6, 2015

Order Denying Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2015080541 · ALJ June R. Lehrman

OAH denied District's opposed continuance request because its SELPA representative's conflicting hearing was not good cause; District can send a different representative to the hearing.

Denied Scheduling and continuances

This case went to decision

Student v. San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools et al.: San Bernardino County Superintendent and Colton Joint Unified must fund four IEEs and add safety measures to student's IEP. (2016)

Summary

District asked to continue the hearing dates because its primary representative, the East Valley SELPA Program Manager, was also representing another district at a different hearing set for the same dates. Student opposed and objected to the new dates District proposed. OAH denied the request and confirmed all prehearing conference and hearing dates. It explained that two matters being on calendar at once happens so often that it cannot by itself justify a continuance, and District could choose someone else to represent it at hearing.

Why it matters

Continuances are disfavored in special education cases. A district's scheduling conflict for its representative is not good cause when another person can attend, so parents who object to delay can successfully keep their hearing dates.

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)
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)

Topics

continuance good cause hearing dates district representative scheduling conflict

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. 2015080541 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE

REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On November 2, 2015, District filed a request to continue the dates in this matter.

District’s reason was that its primary representative, the East Valley SELPA Program Manager, was also the primary representative for a different district that had a different hearing pending on the same dates in OAH Case No. 2015060423. On November 5, Student opposed, objecting to the dates District requested. As discussed below, good cause has not been shown for the continuance, thus the motion is denied.

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 prehearing conference and hearing dates are confirmed and shall proceed as calendared. The pendency of two matters on calendar is such a frequent occurrence that it cannot serve as the sole justification for a continuance, especially since if both matters proceed to hearing and the SELPA program manager cannot attend both, District may choose a different individual to represent it at hearing.