California OAH special education order · November 26, 2018
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2018081156 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Parent's opposed request to continue the hearing. The request was unsigned, and Parent had arranged the hearing dates months earlier, so there was no good cause.
This case went to decision
Los Alamitos Unified School District v. Student: Los Alamitos Unified may not implement a triennial IEP without consent after excluding parents and relying on flawed assessments. (2019)
Summary
Student asked OAH to continue the prehearing conference and hearing dates because Parent was worried about having enough time to prepare. Los Alamitos opposed the request, arguing there was no good cause. OAH denied the request and kept all dates as calendared. It noted that the request and proof of service lacked Parent's signature, that Parent had arranged the hearing dates months earlier, and that those dates were confirmed in the September 18, 2018 prehearing conference order. OAH also pointed out that the August 30, 2018 scheduling order and the OAH website explain the hearing procedures.
Why it matters
A parent's general worry about preparation time is not good cause for a continuance, especially when the parent agreed to the dates long before. Continuance requests must be signed and should show a specific, unexpected change in circumstances.
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), (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:
LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2018081156
DISTRICT,
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR
v. CONTINUANCE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On November 19, 2018, Student filed a request to continue the dates in this matter with the Office of Administrative Hearings, based upon Parent’s concerns about available time to prepare for hearing. On November 20, 2018, Los Alamitos opposed the request based upon lack of good cause for a continuance as pled by Student.
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. Both the request for continuance and proof of service lack a signature by Parent. Parent’s request for continuance lacks good cause as the continued hearing dates were arranged months ago by Parent, and confirmed in the prehearing conference order of September 18, 2018. As a result Parent has had notice of the hearing since at least that time. Additionally, both the initial Scheduling Order served on both parents on August 30, 2018, as well as the OAH Special Education website, delineate the procedures and requirements for both the prehearing conference and due process hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 26, 2018
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings