California OAH special education order · February 23, 2017
Order Granting District's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2017020602, 2017020699 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether District's fall 2016 occupational therapy assessment was appropriate.
Summary
Two days after Student filed for due process, District filed its own case and moved to consolidate the two, and Student opposed. OAH granted the motion because both cases share a common question about District's fall 2016 occupational therapy assessment and will involve the same witnesses, documents, and facts. District's case also raises whether its November 16, 2016/January 11, 2017 IEP offered a FAPE. The consolidated matters will be heard on the dates set in Student's case, and the 45-day decision timeline runs from Student's filing date.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case defending an assessment that a parent is already challenging, OAH will usually combine the cases even if the parent objects. Parents should expect the district's claims, such as whether its IEP offered a FAPE, to be heard alongside their own.
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017020602 (Primary)
v.
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2017020699 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
On February 13, 2017, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2017020602 (Student’s Case), naming Etiwanda School District. On February 15, 2017, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2017020699 (District’s Case), naming Parent on behalf of Student. District concurrently filed a motion to consolidate District’s case with Student’s Case. On February 21, 2017, Student filed an opposition to District’s motion to consolidate.
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’s case and District’s case involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether District’s occupational therapy assessment in the fall of 2016 was appropriate. District’s complaint also raises an issue as to the adequacy of its November 16, 2016/January 11, 2017 IEP offered a FAPE. Consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the two complaints address the same assessment, and will involve the same witnesses, documents and facts. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
ORDER
1. District’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2017020699 (District’s Case) are
vacated.
3. The consolidated matters shall be heard on the dates set in OAH Case Number
2017020602 (Student’s Case), unless otherwise ordered.
4. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases shall be
based on the date of the filing of the complaint in OAH Case Number 2017020602 (Student’s Case.)
DATE: February 23, 2017
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings