California OAH special education order · July 8, 2016
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Exclude Evidence Regarding Morgan Hill's Assessments
OAH Case No. 2016070087 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Morgan Hill's motion to consolidate because Student's placement case and the district's assessment case raise distinct legal issues. OAH also denied the district's unsupported request to bar assessment evidence.
Summary
Morgan Hill filed its own due process case about its spring 2016 assessments and asked OAH to consolidate it with Student's earlier case. Student opposed. OAH found that Student's case raises only the appropriateness of the 2016-2017 placement offer and does not challenge the assessments or seek independent evaluations, so the two cases share no common question of law and consolidation was denied. The district's alternative request to exclude any reference to its assessments in Student's case was also denied, because it cited no legal authority and evidentiary rulings belong to the hearing ALJ.
Why it matters
Sharing the same parties is not enough for consolidation; the cases must share a common question of law or fact. A district cannot get a blanket advance order barring evidence from a parent's case without legal support, since admissibility is decided at the hearing.
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:
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016070087
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
v. CONSOLIDATE AND DENYING
MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. REGARDING MORGAN HILL’S
ASSESSMENTS
On June 21, 2016, Student filed a due process complaint naming Morgan Hill Unified School District as respondent in OAH case number 2016070007. On July 1, 2016, Morgan Hill filed a due process hearing request against Student in OAH case number 20160087.
Morgan Hill also filed a motion to consolidate the matters. On July 5, 2016, Student opposed the motion to consolidate arguing that the two cases raised different legal issues.
On July 6, 2016, Morgan Hill submitted a reply to Student’s opposition and requested that if consolidation were not granted, that an order be issued baring introduction of evidence regarding Morgan Hill’s assessments during Student’s case.
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 or fact; the same parties; and when consolidating matters furthers 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].)
Initially, Morgan Hill asserted that the two matters present overlapping legal issues;
namely the appropriateness of Morgan Hill’s assessments completed in April, May, and June
2016. The motion further asserts that Student requested independent educational evaluations
at public expense. This assertion is incorrect.
Student’s case raises a single issue regarding the appropriateness of Student’s offered placement for the 2016-2017 school year. Student does not raise an issue regarding the appropriateness of Morgan Hill’s assessments nor does Student’s case seek independent assessments as a remedy.
Here, Student is correct that the cases present distinct legal issues. Although the cases involve the same parties, they do not present a common question of law and can be resolved independently without risking inconsistent rulings. For this reason, consolidation is denied.
Evidentiary Exclusion Morgan Hill requests an order excluding any reference to its assessments as part of Student’s case. No legal authority was provided supporting this request. Additionally, evidentiary rulings regarding the admissibility of evidence will be made by the presiding Administrative Law Judge during the due process hearing.
ORDER
1. Morgan Hill’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
2. Morgan Hill’s request to exclude evidence regarding assessments is denied.
3. Evidentiary rulings will be made by the ALJ during the due process hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: July 8, 2016
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings