California OAH special education order · March 9, 2017
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration; and Order Granting Continuance
OAH Case No. 2016110412, 2016101052 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH granted Student's reconsideration request and continued the hearing to April 18, 2017, because counsel's declaration showed he was unavailable due to another hearing, but only through March 2017.
Summary
OAH had denied the parties' joint request to continue the consolidated hearing to May 8, 2017, because there had already been two continuances and amended complaints alone did not show good cause. Student asked for reconsideration and filed a declaration that Student's attorney was unavailable because of another hearing starting March 28, 2017. The District did not respond. OAH found these were new facts and granted reconsideration, but it continued the hearing only to April 18, 2017, because counsel's unavailability was shown only through the end of March.
Why it matters
A continuance request needs specific, supported reasons, such as a declaration about an attorney's conflicting hearing. Even then, OAH will usually grant only as much delay as the evidence supports, not the full time the parties agreed to.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
People named in the order
- Christine Arden, Administrative Law Judge assigned to 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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016110412 v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016101052
DISTRICT,
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
v. RECONSIDERATION; AND ORDER
GRANTING CONTINUANCE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On March 8, 2017, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order that denied the parties’ joint continuance request as the Office of Administrative Hearings had granted two prior continuance and the setting of a new hearing date based on parties’ amended complaints did not establish by itself good cause for a continuance. On March 9, 2017, Student filed a request for reconsideration and included a declaration as to unavailability of Student’s counsel. Los Angeles Unified School District did not submit a response.
APPLICABLE LAW
OAH will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
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).)
DISCUSSION
Reconsideration Student alleges new facts in support of the request reconsideration, with the declaration from Student’s attorney as to his unavailability due to an existing hearing set to start on March 28, 2017. Accordingly, Student’s request for reconsideration is granted.
Continuance Request The parties’ continuance request was for a hearing to start on May 8, 2017. However, Student has only established unavailability through the end of March 2017. Therefore, this matter is only continued for the hearing to commence on April 18, 2017.
ORDER
1. Motion for Reconsideration is granted.
2. Based on reconsideration, this matter will be set as follows:
Prehearing Conference: April 7, 2017, at 3:00 PM Due Process Hearing: April 18, 2017, at 9:30 AM, April 19 and 20, 2017, at 9:00 AM, and continuing day to day, Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. Matter is assigned to Administrative Law Judge Christine Arden.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates, and shall subpoena witnesses if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will be available to testify.
A witness will not be regarded as unavailable for purposes of showing “good cause” to continue the hearing if the witness is not properly notified of the hearing date or properly subpoenaed, as applicable.
DATE: March 9, 2017
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings