California OAH special education order · February 16, 2017
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2017010034 · ALJ Margaret Broussard
OAH denied the parties' joint continuance request because it gave no reason, attached no declarations, and did not comply with the prehearing conference order's good-cause declaration requirement.
This case went to decision
Student v. Sacramento City Unified School District: Sacramento City Unified prevails; parent did not prove missed assistive technology services or a deficient speech and language assessment. (2017)
Summary
After a prehearing conference confirmed hearing dates of February 22, 23 and 28, 2017, Student and Sacramento City Unified School District jointly asked OAH to continue the hearing. The request gave no reason, attached no declarations, and proposed no new hearing dates. The prehearing conference order required any later motion to be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury showing good cause why it was not raised at the conference. Because continuances are disfavored and this request did not meet that requirement, OAH denied it and kept all dates as calendared.
Why it matters
Even when both sides agree, OAH will not automatically grant a continuance. Parties must give specific reasons and supporting declarations, and must follow any requirements in the prehearing conference order.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c)
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)
People named in the order
- Penelope Pahl, Administrative Law Judge (prehearing conference)
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. 2017010034 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On February 13, 2017, the parties participated in a prehearing conference held before Administrative Law Judge Penelope Pahl, Office of Administrative Hearings. At that time, the hearing dates of February 22, 23 and 28, 2017 were confirmed. At the prehearing conference, both parties stated that no further prehearing motions were pending or contemplated. The prehearing conference order confirms those statements and orders that any motion filed after February 13, 2017 shall be supported by a declaration made under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not made prior to or during the prehearing conference.
On September 16, 2016, the parties filed a joint request for continuance in this matter.
No reason was given for the request, no declarations were attached and no specific dates for hearing were requested. The request does not comply with the prehearing conference order.
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).)
OAH has reviewed the request for good cause and considered all relevant facts and circumstances. The request is:
Denied. All prehearing conference and hearing dates are confirmed and shall proceed as calendared.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 16, 2017
MARGARET BROUSSARD
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings