California OAH special education order · September 28, 2017
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Lead Case
OAH Case No. 2017081305, 2017090642 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH consolidated Student's and San Diego's due process cases, which both concern the June 2017 IEP, and made Student's case the lead case controlling all timelines.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Diego Unified School District (consolidated): San Diego Unified must reimburse a year of nonpublic school tuition and transportation after failing to implement a consented IEP. (2018)
Summary
San Diego filed its own due process case asking whether Student's June 7, 2017 IEP offered a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. San Diego then moved to consolidate that case with Student's earlier case, which challenges the same IEP on the grounds that there was no clear offer of FAPE and that the IEP was not implemented. Student did not respond. OAH granted the motion because the cases share the same parties, common questions of law and fact, and many of the same witnesses and documents. Consolidation saves time and avoids inconsistent rulings. Student's case was made the lead case, so its mediation, prehearing conference, hearing dates, and 45-day decision timeline apply.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case about the same IEP, OAH will usually combine it with the parent's case. Making the parent's earlier-filed case the lead case keeps the parent's hearing schedule and decision timeline in place.
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. 2017081305 v.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2017090642
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. CONSOLIDATE AND DESIGNATING
STUDENT’S CASE AS LEAD CASE
On August 31, 2017, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2017081305 (Student’s Case), naming San Diego Unified School District.1 Student’s Case is scheduled for mediation on October 5, 2017; a prehearing conference on October 20, 2017; and hearing beginning October 25, 2017.
On September 19, 2017, San Diego filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2017090642 (San Diego’s Case), naming Student.
On September 19, 2017, San Diego filed a Motion to Consolidate the two cases.
Student has not filed a response to the motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
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 Student’s request for hearing was received after business hours on August 30, 2017.
It is deemed filed as of the next business day.
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].)
DISCUSSION
San Diego seeks to consolidate the two cases as they involve similar issues regarding Student’s June 7, 2017 individualized education program. San Diego’s issue for hearing is whether the June 2017 IEP offers Student a free appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. Student identifies as issues for hearing whether San Diego denied her a FAPE by preventing Parent for meaningfully participating in the decision making process when it failed to make a clear offer of FAPE, and whether it failed to implement the June 2017 IEP.
Here, San Diego’s Case and Student’s Case involve common questions of law and fact. Accordingly, consolidation is warranted and will prevent the risk of inconsistent rulings. In addition, consolidation furthers the interest of judicial economy because both cases involve the same parties, and many of the same witnesses will be required to testify in each proceeding. Each matter will also involve the introduction of the same or similar documents.
When consolidating cases, OAH designates the statutory timelines applicable to the consolidated matters to be controlled by one of the cases. Here, the statutory timelines shall be controlled by Student’s Case.
ORDER
1. San Diego’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2017090642, San Diego’s Case,
are vacated.
3. The consolidate matter shall now proceed on the dates currently scheduled for
Student’s Case. The mediation shall be held on October 5, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., with a prehearing conference on October 20, 2017, at 3:00 p.m., and hearing shall begin on October 25, 2017, at 9:30 a.m., and continue day to day, Monday through Thursday, as needed at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge.
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 2017081305, Student’s Case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 28, 2017
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings