California OAH special education order · February 22, 2016
Order Denying Peremptory Challenge
OAH Case No. 2015100570 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied District's peremptory challenge to ALJ Alexa Hohensee as untimely because District filed it the day before hearing, missing the noon Friday deadline for off-site hearings.
This case went to decision
Student v. Torrance Unified School District: Torrance Unified must fund 23 hours of compensatory education and train staff; Student loses placement, transportation and IEE claims. (2016)
Summary
District filed a peremptory challenge on Monday, February 22, 2016, asking to disqualify ALJ Alexa Hohensee from a hearing set to start the next day. District was notified of her assignment on Thursday, February 18. For hearings held somewhere other than an OAH office, the regulation requires a peremptory challenge by noon on the Friday before the hearing starts. Because District missed that deadline, the challenge was denied.
Why it matters
Peremptory challenges to an ALJ have strict deadlines, and for off-site hearings the deadline is noon on the Friday before hearing, even if the ALJ was assigned only a day earlier. Parties must act quickly once they learn who the ALJ is.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1034, subd. (e)
People named in the order
- Alexa Hohensee, Administrative Law Judge (challenged)
- June R. Lehrman, Presiding Administrative Law Judge
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. 2015100570 v. ORDER DENYING PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On Monday, February 22, 2016. District filed a peremptory challenge, seeking to disqualify Administrative Law Judge Alexa Hohensee from hearing this case, which is scheduled to commence on Tuesday, February 23, 2016. District’s peremptory challenge is untimely and is denied.
The peremptory challenge is made pursuant to Government Code section 11425.40, subdivision (d), of the Administrative Procedures Act, and California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 1034. Government Code section 11425.40, subdivision (d), establishes the criteria for disqualification of the presiding officer. California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 1034 establishes the timeliness requirements. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 1034, subdivision (e), for a hearing (such as this one) that is scheduled to occur at a location other than an OAH office, a peremptory challenge must be filed by noon on Friday the week preceding the matter’s commencement.
District was notified of the appointment of ALJ Hohensee to this matter on Thursday, February 18, and neglected to timely file the peremptory by noon on Friday, February 19.
The peremptory challenge is therefore untimely pursuant to California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 1034, subdivision (e), and is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 22, 2016
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings