California OAH special education order · January 19, 2016

Order Denying Motion to Consolidate

OAH Case No. 2015080678 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones

OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two due process cases against District, finding it was a disguised attempt to get around an earlier denial of Student's motion to amend.

Denied Consolidation

Summary

Student filed a second due process complaint and asked OAH to consolidate it with her first case, which had already been continued twice. District objected that the motion was an attempt to get around the ALJ's prehearing conference ruling denying Student's motion to amend her first complaint. OAH agreed the cases shared the same parties and IEPs. It still denied consolidation because consolidating would not serve judicial economy, would unduly delay the first case, and was merely a repeat of the denied motion to amend. Student also failed to include the declaration the prehearing conference order required for motions filed after the prehearing conference.

Why it matters

A motion to consolidate cannot be used to revive claims an ALJ refused to add by amendment, especially late in a case that has already been continued. Families should raise all claims early and follow prehearing conference orders that require a declaration explaining any late motion.

Key authority cited

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

Topics

consolidation motion to amend judicial economy prehearing conference order delay

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. 2015080678 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

REDONDO BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL

DISTRICT.

On August 12, 2015, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015080678 (Student’s First Case), naming District.

On January 6, 2016, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2016010102 (Student’s Second Case), naming District.

On January 6, 2016, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s First Case with Student’s Second Case.

On January 11, 2016, District filed an objection to consolidation on the grounds that the motion to consolidate was an attempt to indirectly circumvent the Administrative Law Judge’s ruling made at the prehearing conference in Student’s First Case, which denied Student’s motion to amend her complaint in Student’s First Case. Thereafter, each party filed reply briefs.

Consolidation 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 involve the same parties and the same individualized education programs. However, consolidation does not further the interests of judicial economy, and integrity. Rather, Student’s motion is an attempt to circumvent the ALJ’s ruling on Student’s motion to amend her complaint in Student’s First Case, as stated at the prehearing conference of January 4 2016, and as documented in the prehearing conference order in that case dated January 8, 2016. Student’s motion to consolidate is merely a repeat of her previously denied motion to amend in a different cloak.

Consolidation of these two cases would unduly delay the adjudication of Student’s First Case, which has already been continued twice, and, in view of all of the circumstances, Student has not demonstrated any compelling reason to consolidate her cases. Furthermore, the prehearing conference order in Student’s First Case specifically stated that no motions were to be filed after the prehearing conference unless a declaration was included explaining why the motion had not been filed prior to the prehearing conference. No such declaration was included in Student’s motion to consolidate or in her reply papers.

Consequently, Student’s motion is denied.

ORDER

1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.

2. All dates previously set for hearing in this matter shall remain as scheduled.