California OAH special education order · March 28, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2016031038, 2016030186 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over District's objection, finding both turn on the November 2015 IEP and that judicial economy outweighed Student's failure to follow the prehearing conference order.
Summary
Student moved to combine Student's due process case with District's earlier-filed case. District opposed for two reasons: Student did not file the declaration showing good cause that the prehearing conference order required for motions filed after the prehearing conference, and Student's issues were broader than District's single issue. OAH granted consolidation because both cases ask whether the November 17, 2015 IEP offered a FAPE and would use the same witnesses and evidence. OAH vacated District's dates, kept the dates in Student's case, and based the 45-day decision timeline on Student's filing date.
Why it matters
OAH may consolidate a parent's broader case with a district's narrower case when they share a common question, even if the parent's motion does not meet a prehearing order's procedural requirements. Combining the cases saves families from going through two hearings on the same IEP.
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. 2016031038 (Primary)
v.
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016030186
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. CONSOLIDATE
On March 2, 2016, Morgan Hill Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a request for due process hearing naming Parents on behalf of Student in OAH case number 2016030186 (District’s Case).
On March 23, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student filed with OAH a request for due process hearing naming District in OAH case number 2016031038 (Student’s Case).
On March 23, 2016, in Student’s Case, Student filed a motion to consolidate Student’s case with District’s Case.
On March 28, 2016, District filed an opposition to consolidation on the grounds that the prehearing conference order in District’s case ordered any motions filed after the PHC of March 22, 2016 be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause as to why the motion was not made prior to the PHC, and no declaration was included in Student’s motion. District also objects that the issues in Student’s case are broader than the sole issue in District’s case.
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].)
Here, Student’s Case and District’s Case involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether the individualized education program dated November 17, 2015 offered Student a free appropriate public education. Student’s Case claims that District denied Student a FAPE for the 2014-2015 school year, as well as that portion of the 2015-2016 school year covered by the November 2015 IEP. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because economy because the same witnesses and evidence will be presented in both cases. Consolidation will avoid the duplication of time, expense and resources involved in having these matters proceed to hearing separately.
Although Student’s motion fails to comply with the PHC order in District’s case, the interests of judicial economy weigh strongly in favor of consolidation.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion to consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH case number 2016030186 (District’s Case) are
vacated.
3. The mediation, prehearing conference and hearing in these consolidated matters
will take place on the dates currently scheduled in Student’s Case.
4. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be
based on the date of the filing of the complaint in OAH case number 2016031038 (Student’s Case).
DATE: March 28, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings