California OAH special education order · May 17, 2016
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2016040803 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate because District's request to assess over parental objection does not share issues with Student's case about Student's behavioral needs.
This case went to decision
Carlsbad Unified School District v. Student: Carlsbad Unified may conduct a 13-year-old's first triennial reassessment without Parents' consent, the ALJ rules. (2016)
Summary
Student asked OAH to combine Student's due process case with District's earlier case, which sought to assess Student over parental objection. District did not respond, and it appeared Student had not served the motion on District's counsel. OAH denied consolidation because Student did not show that an upcoming manifestation determination meeting had any bearing on District's assessment case, and that meeting was not an issue in Student's case. District's assessment request also did not involve the same issues as Student's behavior-related claims. OAH separately ordered Student to serve the motion on District's counsel, or prove prior service, by 4:00 p.m. on May 18, 2016.
Why it matters
Filing two cases between the same parties is not enough to get them consolidated. The moving party must show common questions of law or fact. Motions must also be served on opposing counsel, and OAH may order proof of service.
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 Matter of:
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016040803
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. CONSOLIDATE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On April 19, 2016, Carlsbad Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2016040803 (District’s Case), naming Student.
On May 4, 2016, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2016050271 (Student’s Case), naming District.
On May 17, 2016, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s Case with District’s Case. District has not filed a response, but it does not appear that Student served a copy of the request on District’s legal counsel.1 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 has not established that the manifestation determination meeting scheduled for May 20, 2016, has any bearing on District’s request to assess Student over parental objections in its case, and is not alleged as an issue in Student’s pending case.
Student is ordered to serve a copy of motion to consolidate on District’s legal counsel and provide proof to OAH of the service by 4:00 p.m. on May 18, 2016. If Student did serve a copy of the motion to consolidate on District’s legal counsel, Student shall provide proof to OAH of the service by 4:00 p.m. on May 18, 2016.
Further, District’s request to assess Student over parental objection does not involve the same issues in Student’s case involving his behavioral needs. Therefore, Student’s motion to consolidate cases is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 17, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings