California OAH special education order · October 3, 2018
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2018050541 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Antioch's request for a fourth continuance because the conflicting case was filed two months later and OAH generally gives priority to the earlier-filed case.
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
Antioch Unified School District asked to continue the hearing dates because of a conflict with another case. Student opposed, noting the case had already been continued and the conflicting case was filed after this one. OAH denied the request. Three continuances had already been granted, the conflicting case was filed two months later, OAH generally gives precedence to the earlier-filed case, and Antioch offered no reason to depart from that policy.
Why it matters
Continuances are disfavored, and a party's scheduling conflict with a later-filed case usually will not justify delay, especially after earlier continuances. Parents can successfully oppose repeated district delay requests.
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 October 2, 2018, Antioch Unified School District filed a request to continue the dates in this matter with the Office of Administrative Hearings, based upon a conflict with another case. Later on October 2, 2018, Student opposed the request based upon the fact that the case had previously been continued and the case presenting the conflict filed after this one.
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).)
Three other requests for continuance have been granted in this case. The case that conflicts with this matter was filed two months after this one. OAH generally gives precedence to the earlier filed case and no justification for making a decision contrary to that policy has been asserted by Antioch in this instance. Good cause has not been established for another continuance. The request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 3, 2018
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings