California OAH special education order · September 4, 2015
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2015090006, 2015040613 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over District's opposition because both cases turn on whether the December 4, 2014 IEP offer and its January 23, 2015 continuation meeting were adequate.
Summary
Student moved to consolidate Student's due process case with an earlier case filed by the District and County Superintendent, and District opposed. OAH found that both cases share common legal and factual questions about the December 4, 2014 IEP offer and its January 23, 2015 continuation meeting. It also found that consolidation saves time because the cases share documents and witnesses. OAH vacated all dates in District's case and based the 45-day decision timeline on the filing date of Student's complaint.
Why it matters
When a district files first to defend its IEP offer, a parent can still ask OAH to combine that case with the parent's own challenge to the same offer. In this order, doing so restarted the decision timeline from the filing date of the parent's later case.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
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. 2015090006 v.
VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
SCHOOLS,
VICTOR VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2015040613
DISTRICT AND SAN BERNARDINO
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
SCHOOLS, CONSOLIDATE
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On April 14, 2015, Victor Valley Union High School District and San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schools filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in Office of Administrative Hearings case number 2015040613 (District’s Case), naming Student.
On August 28, 2014, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015090006 (Student’s Case), naming District and County Superintendent.
On August 28, 2015, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s Case with District’s Case. On September 3, 2015, District filed an opposition to the motion to consolidate.
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, the First Case and Second Case involve a common question of law and fact, specifically, regarding the adequacy of the District’s and County’s December 4, 2014 and its continuation meeting of January 23, 2015 individualized educational program offer. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because of the commonality of legal and factual issues, plus documentary evidence and witnesses. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2015040613 [District’s Case] are
vacated.
3. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be
based on the date of the filing of the complaint in OAH Case Number 2015090006 [Student’s Case].
DATE: September 4, 2015
/S /
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings