California OAH special education order · December 12, 2017
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2017061033 · ALJ Margaret Gibson
OAH denied Antioch's request to push the December 28 hearing to mid-February 2018. Winter break and counsel's busy calendar are not good cause, and the case had been pending six months.
This case went to decision
Student v. Antioch Unified School District: Antioch Unified wins child find case; pre-June 2015 claims time-barred and summer break delayed assessment deadline. (2018)
Summary
Antioch Unified School District asked to continue the hearing set for December 28, 2017 to mid-February 2018. It said district staff and witnesses would be on winter break and its attorneys had heavy hearing calendars. Student filed a limited opposition agreeing only to a brief continuance up to January 8, 2018. OAH denied the request because Antioch did not show that any specific witness or party was unavailable, holidays are not good cause, the case had been pending since June 2017, and counsel did not show that their other cases were filed before this one; the parties could instead discuss moving the hearing to OAH's Oakland office.
Why it matters
A district cannot delay a due process hearing just by pointing to school breaks or its lawyers' busy schedules; it must show that specific witnesses are unavailable. Parents can oppose open-ended delays and offer a limited alternative date instead.
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)
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. 2017061033 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On December 8, 2017 Antioch Unified School District filed a request to continue the dates in this matter with the Office of Administrative Hearings. Antioch wishes to continue this matter, set to begin hearing on December 28, 2017 because the Antioch and key witnesses are not available for hearing because it is winter break when the district office is closed and District staff are expected to be on vacation and because Antioch and its counsel have “heavy calendars for hearings, making it difficult to properly prepare” Antioch’s case for hearing. Antioch proposes that the hearing be continued to mid-February 2018.
Supplemental declarations were received from two of Antioch’s attorneys. Student filed a limited opposition stating that he does “not oppose a brief continuance of the due process hearing up to and including January 8, 2018, in observance of the holidays.”
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. Antioch has failed to show the unavailability of any specific witness or party. Winter Break or observance of the holidays is not good cause for a continuance. Further, this matter was filed in June 2017 and has been pending for 6 months. Although counsel for Antioch claims that they have a “heavy” hearing schedule, they did not show that the cases they claim take precedence were filed prior to this case. As to the unavailability of Antioch as a hearing location, the parties can discuss moving the hearing to the Oakland OAH office at the prehearing conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 12, 2017
MARGARET GIBSON
Division Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings