California OAH special education order · October 6, 2016
Order of No Action
OAH Case No. 2016091036 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH took no action on Student's request to coordinate 14 related cases against Oxnard under one judge, because scheduling orders had issued and counsel could work out schedules or seek continuances.
This case went to decision
Student v. Oxnard School District: Oxnard School District missed child find duty from fall 2014; ALJ orders 148 compensatory hours, evaluation, and staff training. (2017)
Summary
Student asked OAH to relate this case to 13 other cases against Oxnard School District. The goal was to have mediations, prehearing conferences, and hearings coordinated before a single judge and case manager. District opposed any class-action-style consolidation but did not oppose coordinated management, and Student clarified that it was not seeking consolidation. OAH found no action was needed because scheduling orders had already been served in all 14 matters, and counsel could agree on workable dates and request continuances with proposed dates if needed.
Why it matters
When families bring several related cases against the same district, OAH may not formally assign them to one judge. Counsel should instead coordinate dates with each other and file continuance requests with proposed dates for mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing.
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. 2016091036 v. ORDER OF NO ACTION
OXNARD SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On September 22, 2016, Student filed a request for a due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings against Oxnard School District, and requested on the same date that OAH relate Student’s case with 13 other related cases against District so “matters such that the mediations, hearings and prehearing conferences can be coordinated and heard before a single judge and managed by a single case manager.” On September 30, 2016, District filed a response that opposed any attempt to create a class action amongst the 14 cases by consolidating the cases, but did not oppose OAH coordinating management of these cases. On October 4, 2016, Student filed a reply brief that clarified that Student did not seek to consolidate the 14 cases, but only requested that OAH coordinate the mediations and hearings so that the cases can proceed in an efficient manner by assigning the 14 related cases to a single ALJ or set of ALJ’s.
At this time, no action is required of OAH as the scheduling orders in the 14 matters have been served on the parties and counsel for the parties may discuss amongst themselves a schedule that works for the parties and counsel. If parties need a continuance, they may make such a request with proposed dates for mediation, prehearing conference and hearing, which OAH shall consider. Therefore, no action is required of OAH as to Student’s September 22, 2016 request that OAH coordinate the handling of the 14 related cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 6, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings