California OAH special education order · February 11, 2019
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2019020281, 2019010105 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH consolidated Student's and the districts' cases because both turn on whether the February 1, 2019 residential placement offer is a FAPE. It vacated Student's March hearing dates despite Student's objection to delay.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools et al. (consolidated): Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek must fund residential placement at Madison Oaks and reimburse $11,025 after broad FAPE denials. (2019)
Summary
Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek Elementary School District filed their own due process complaint about a February 1, 2019 residential placement offer, then moved to consolidate it with Student's earlier-filed case. Student did not oppose consolidation but objected that continuing the March 5–7, 2019 hearing dates would be prejudicial. OAH granted consolidation because the cases share a common question, the same witnesses would testify, and consolidation avoids inconsistent rulings. It vacated all dates in Student's case and based the 45-day decision timeline on the filing date of the districts' later complaint.
Why it matters
When a district files its own complaint and moves to consolidate, the parent's earlier hearing dates can be vacated and the decision timeline reset to the district's later filing date, which can delay a hearing the parent was ready for. Parents who want to keep their dates should argue specifically why a continuance causes prejudice.
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:
TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OAH Case No. 2019020281
OF SCHOOLS, AND CURTIS CREEK
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2019010105 v.
TUOLUMNE COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF SCHOOLS, AND CURTIS CREEK ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. CONSOLIDATE
On January 3, 2019, Student filed a request for due process hearing in OAH case number 2019010105, naming Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek Elementary School District.
On February 6, 2019, Tuolumne and Curtis Creek filed a complaint in OAH case number 2019020281, naming Student. On February 7, 2019, Tuolumne and Curtis Creek filed a motion to consolidate its case with Student’s. Student objects to a continuance of the March 5, 6, and 7 hearing dates as prejudicial, but does not oppose consolidation.
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 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
Here, Student’s case and District’s case involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether the February 1, 2019 residential placement offer, is an offer of a free and appropriate public education, and if so, whether it can be implemented in its entirety.
Further, Student does not oppose consolidation. Additionally, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the same witnesses would testify in both hearings, and consolidation will also prevent the risk of inconsistent rulings.
ORDER
1. Tuolumne County Superintendent of Schools and Curtis Creek Elementary
School District’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH case number 201910105, are vacated.
3. 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 2019020281.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 11, 2019
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings