California OAH special education order · March 4, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing PHC Only
OAH Case No. 2015120472, 2016030014 · ALJ Dena Coggins
OAH consolidated Manteca's assessment case with Student's earlier case because both involve the same parties, the same time period, and overlapping questions about assessing Student. Student's case is the primary case.
This case went to decision
Student v. Manteca Unified School District (consolidated): Manteca Unified must provide 448 hours of tutoring and counseling over defective IEP goals; general education placement claim denied. (2016)
Summary
Manteca filed its own due process case seeking permission to assess Student without Parents' consent. It moved to consolidate that case with Student's earlier case, which alleged Manteca failed to assess Student for all suspected disabilities. Student did not respond. OAH granted the unopposed motion because the cases share common questions of law and fact, the same parties, and likely the same witnesses and evidence. OAH named Student's case the primary case for timelines, continued the prehearing conference to March 7, 2016, and kept the March 15, 2016 hearing date.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case to assess without consent while a parent's failure-to-assess case is pending, OAH will usually combine the two and run them on the parent's earlier schedule. Parents should be ready to defend the district's assessment request at the same hearing.
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. 2015120472 v.
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2016030014 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE AND CONTINUING
PHC ONLY
On December 10, 2015, Student filed a request for due process hearing in OAH Case No. 2015120472 (Student’s Case), naming Manteca Unified School District.
On February 29, 2016, Manteca filed a request for due process hearing in OAH Case No. 2016030014 (Manteca’s Case), naming Student.
On February 29, 2016, Manteca filed a motion to consolidate Manteca’s Case with Student’s Case. In the motion, Manteca requested that its case be heard on the same schedule as Student’s case or other dates as assigned by OAH. Student did not file a response to the motion.
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].)
DISCUSSION
Here, Manteca’s Case and Student’s Case involve common questions of law and fact.
Manteca’s Case asks OAH to determine whether Manteca has the right to assess Student pursuant to assessment plans dated November 20, 2015, and February 5, 2016, without Parents’ consent. In Student’s Case, Student alleges Manteca avoided assessing Student, was unwilling to test Student for secondary disabilities or to better understand maladaptive behaviors, and failed to respond to a Prior Written Notice request from Parent that Student be fully and completely tested for all suspected disabilities. These issues relate to the same time period, the same parties, and involve common questions of law and fact. Additionally, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the matters will likely involve many of the same witnesses and evidence. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
Upon consolidation, OAH must determine the case that will be considered the primary case for the purposes of calculating the applicable timelines. Student’s Case, OAH Case No. 2015120472, will be considered the primary case.
A prehearing conference was set for March 4, 2016, in Student’s Case. The currently set PHC is continued to March 7, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. This continuance is provided to allow the parties time to file PHC statements relating to all matters at issue in this consolidated matter. The parties will have until 12:00 p.m. on Monday, March 7, 2016, to file their respective PHC statements.
ORDER
1. Manteca’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Student’s Case, OAH Case No. 2015120472, will be designated as the primary
case for determining the applicable timelines.
3. The PHC set in Student’s Case is continued to March 7, 2016, at 3:00 p.m. The
parties must file their PHC statements by 12:00 p.m. on March 7, 2016, on all matters at issue in this consolidated matter.
4. All dates previously set in Manteca’s Case, OAH Case No. 2016030014 are
vacated. The matter will proceed on the dates set forth in Student’s Case, OAH Case No. 2015120472 as follows:
Prehearing Conference: March 7, 2016, at 3:00 p.m.
Due Process Hearing: March 15, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., March 16 and March 17, at 9:00 a.m., and continuing day to day, Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 4, 2016
DENA COGGINS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings