California OAH special education order · December 31, 2018
Order Denying Student's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2018120960 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Culver City's assessment case because Student's denial-of-FAPE claims and the District's request to conduct an ERICS assessment share no common question of law or fact.
Summary
Student asked OAH to consolidate Student's due process case with Culver City's earlier-filed case, arguing that the two cases shared witnesses and evidence. Culver City objected that the cases had no issues in common. OAH denied consolidation. Student's case alleges a denial of a free appropriate public education, while Culver City's case only seeks permission to conduct an educationally related intensive counseling services assessment, so any overlap in witnesses or documents was too small to justify combining them.
Why it matters
Pointing to shared witnesses or documents is not enough to win consolidation. A party must show a real common question of law or fact, and a district's narrow assessment case will usually be heard separately from a parent's broader FAPE claims.
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2018120960 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
CULVER CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 16, 2018, Culver City Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2018110595 (Culver City’s Case), naming Student. On November 29, 2018, OAH granted the parties’ joint continuance for the hearing to commence on January 29, 2019.
On December 26, 2018, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2018120960 (Student’s Case), naming Culver City. Student’s Case is presently scheduled to commence on February 20, 2019.
On December 26, 2018, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate District’s Case with Student’s Case asserting a commonality of witnesses and evidence between the two cases.
On December 28, 2018, Culver City filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that there was no commonality of issues between the two cases.
On December 31, 2018, Student filed a reply to Culver City’s objections continuing to assert a commonality of witnesses and evidence between the two cases.
Consolidation 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 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].)
Here, Student’s Case and Culver City’s Case do not involve a common question of law or fact. Specifically, Student is seeking relief for alleged failure by Culver City to provide Student with a free appropriate public education, while Culver City simply seeks an order allowing it to conduct an educationally-related intensive counseling services assessment of Student. Although there may be witnesses that may testify in both cases or documents that are relevant to both, the potential overlap is so minimal as to fail to meet the requirements for consolidation articulated above.
ORDER
Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 31, 2018
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings