California OAH special education order · June 27, 2018
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2018050541 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied the parties' joint stipulation to continue the hearing because they did not identify the unavailable witnesses or give any evidence that pre-paid vacations made them unavailable.
This case went to decision
Student v. Antioch Unified School District: Antioch Unified wrongly found first grader ineligible; must fund 250 compensatory hours and a $450 speech assessment. (2018)
Summary
Parent and Antioch Unified School District jointly asked OAH to continue the due process hearing. They said witnesses on both sides had pre-paid vacation plans and could not attend on the scheduled dates. OAH denied the request because the stipulation did not name the witnesses or support their unavailability with any evidence. OAH explained that continuances are disfavored, require good cause, and are not granted just because the parties agree. The denial was without prejudice, so the parties could file a new request with supporting evidence.
Why it matters
Even when both sides agree, OAH will not continue a hearing without evidence of good cause. Requests should name the unavailable witnesses and include declarations or other proof of why they cannot attend.
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. 2018050541 v. ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
ANTIOCH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 11, 2018, Parent on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint) naming Antioch Unified School District as respondent. On June 27, 2018, the parties jointly filed a stipulation to a continuance of the hearing. The stipulation noted that both parties had witnesses with pre-paid vacation plans which resulting in being unavailable for the scheduled dates. However, the witnesses in question were not identified and the unavailability was not supported by any evidence.
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; 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).)
Every continuance delays the resolution of the educational program of the Student involved. For this reason, good cause is required in order for a continuance to be granted.
(Ed. Code § 56505(f)(3).) Thus, OAH does not automatically grant continuances nor are stipulations to continuances allowed.
The requested continuance is DENIED without prejudice to the parties’ submitting a new request with supporting evidence establishing good cause.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 27, 2018
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings