California OAH special education order · March 30, 2016
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2016030420 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied the parties' joint request to continue the due process hearing, finding that wanting more time for settlement talks after mediation is not good cause by itself.
This case went to decision
Garden Grove Unified School District v. Student: Garden Grove Unified's adult transition program offer and certificate of completion track upheld for 17-year-old with autism. (2016)
Summary
Student and Garden Grove Unified School District jointly asked OAH to move the hearing from April 5-7, 2016 to April 25-27, 2016 so they could keep talking about settlement. They had made the same request at the March 28, 2016 prehearing conference, and ALJ Judith Pasewark denied it there. Presiding ALJ Peter Paul Castillo denied it again. He found that continuing settlement negotiations after mediation is not good cause on its own, and noted that the parties had said they wanted the matter decided quickly. The hearing will go forward as scheduled.
Why it matters
Even when both sides agree, OAH may refuse to delay a hearing just so settlement talks can continue, especially after mediation has already happened. Families and districts should be ready to go to hearing on the scheduled dates.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
People named in the order
- Judith Pasewark, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
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. 2016030420 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On March 29, 2016, the parties filed a joint request to continue the initially set dates in this matter with the Office of Administrative Hearings, based upon need for additional time to permit the parties to engage in more settlement discussion. The parties requested a continuance to April 25, 26 and 27, 2016, so any decision issued would be done before the start of the 2016-2017 school year. The parties made the same request at the March 28, 2016 prehearing conference, which Administrative Law Judge Judith Pasewark denied. Matter is presently set for hearing on April 5 -7, 2016.
A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance;
and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
OAH has reviewed the request for good cause and considered all relevant facts and circumstances. The request is:
Denied. The parties’ request for a continuance based on a desire to continue settlement negotiations, after the parties participated in mediation is not by itself good cause for a continuance. Further, the parties have expressed a desire to have the matter be decided quickly. Therefore, the parties’ continuance request is denied and shall proceed as presently scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 30, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings