California OAH special education order · July 1, 2016
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2016020671, 2016061303 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied District's late motion to consolidate its new case with Student's earlier case because consolidation would further delay Student's already-continued hearing and would not serve judicial economy.
Summary
District filed its own due process complaint on June 30, 2016, and moved to consolidate it with Student's case, which Student filed in February 2016. The parties argued the motion at the July 1, 2016 prehearing conference in Student's case. OAH denied the motion. Consolidation would delay Student's hearing, which had already been continued on District's motion. District had known about its issues since February but waited until the day before the prehearing conference to file, and it would not agree to move its own hearing up to match Student's.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a last-minute complaint and consolidation motion to push back a parent's hearing, especially when it sat on known issues for months. Parents can oppose late consolidation that would delay their 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. 2016020671 v.
RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2016061303 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
CONSOLIDATE
On June 30, 2016, District filed a due process complaint (OAH Case No.
2016061303), naming Student (District’s Case). District’ Case is set for hearing on July 26,
2016. District concurrently filed a motion to consolidate District’s Case with OAH Case No.
2016020671, which Student file in February 2016 (Student’s Case). District’s Motion to Consolidate was argued by the parties at the July 1, 2016 prehearing conference in Student’s Case.
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, consolidation would delay the hearing in Student’s Case, which had already been continued on District’s motion. The issues in District’s Case were known to the District since the February 2016 filing of Student’s Case. Yet, District delayed in filing its complaint and motion to consolidate until the day before the prehearing conference in Student’s Case.
Additionally, District was unwilling to stipulate to advance the hearing in District’s Case to the hearing in Student’s Case. Consolidation at this late date does not serve the interests of judicial economy or raise the likelihood of inconsistent rulings. Accordingly, the motion to consolidate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 01, 2016
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings