California OAH special education order · April 18, 2016
Order Denying Student's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2015120844, 2016040559 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases against Redlands Unified. The cases shared little common law or fact, and consolidation would only have delayed a hearing OAH had repeatedly refused to continue.
Summary
Student filed a second due process complaint against District and asked OAH to consolidate it with his first case. Consolidation would have continued the first case's April 18-21, 2016 hearing dates. District opposed, and OAH denied the motion. Two of the three issues in the second case concerned a February 27, 2015 settlement agreement, while the first case concerned FAPE from February 2013 to December 2015, so there was little risk of inconsistent rulings and little gain in efficiency. OAH also noted it had already twice found no good cause to continue the first case, and consolidation would only delay that hearing.
Why it matters
OAH will not let a motion to consolidate serve as a back-door continuance after continuance requests have been denied. Cases about a settlement agreement may not share enough common issues with FAPE claims to be combined.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1048, subd. (a)
People named in the order
- Cole Dalton, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
- Clifford H. Woosley, 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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015120844 vs.
REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016040559 vs. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On December 21, 2015, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2015120844 (Student’s First Case), naming Redlands Unified School District.
On April 12, 2015, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2016040559 (Student’s Second Case), naming District. Student concurrently filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s Second Case with Student’s First Case, which would have continued the hearing dates in Student’s First Case of April 18 through 21, 2016.
On April 14, 2016, District filed opposition to Student’s motion to consolidate contending that Student’s Second Complaint asserts different issues than those in Student’s First Complaint, that consolidation will not substantively contribute to judicial economy, and that the motion is another attempt to continue the hearing dates in Student’s First Case.1 Student withdrew his First Case the afternoon of April 15, 2016, after being informed orally by OAH that OAH was going to deny the motion to consolidate and the matter would proceed to hearing on April 18, 2016.
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 do not substantively involve a common question of law or fact. Specifically, two of the three issues in Student’s Second Complaint relate to issues and implementation of a February 27, 2015 settlement agreement while Student’s First Complaint concern Student’s right to a FAPE from February 2013 through the December 2015 filing of the First Complaint. Therefore, the possibility of inconsistent rulings is unlikely. Though Student’s Second Complaint might include some witnesses from Student’s First Complaint, the interests to judicial economy would be minimal.
In addition, District correctly notes that OAH has twice ruled there is not good cause to continue Student’s First Case. Student’s First Case was filed in December 2015. OAH granted a joint request to continue on February 5, 2016. On April 7, 2016, OAH denied a joint request for a second continuance for lack of good cause. On April 11, 2016, Student filed a motion for a second continuance of his First Case, which was heard during the April 12, 2016 prehearing conference before Administrative Law Judge Cole Dalton. The motion was denied. Consolidation would only delay the hearing in Student’s First Case.
Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 18, 2016
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings