California OAH special education order · April 15, 2019
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2019040096, 2019030675 · ALJ Brian H. Krikorian
OAH consolidated Anaheim Union's case with Student's re-filed case over Student's objection, because both challenge the same December 2018 IEP and assessments and will use the same witnesses and evidence.
Summary
Student dismissed an earlier complaint that had already been consolidated with Anaheim Union's case, then re-filed a nearly identical complaint with two added issues. Anaheim Union asked OAH to consolidate its case, which sought to implement the December 2018 IEP without Parent's consent and to defend its assessments, with Student's new case. Student objected that the district's case had only two issues and might decide everything, so Student's case would not need a hearing. OAH granted consolidation because the cases share common questions of law and fact and the same witnesses and evidence. It found that Student's own argument about one case possibly deciding the other actually supported consolidation, and it made Student's case the primary case.
Why it matters
Dismissing and re-filing a complaint will not keep it apart from a district's related case when both concern the same IEP. Arguing that one case could decide the other tends to support consolidation rather than defeat it.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2019040096 v.
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
ANAHEIM UNION HIGH SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2019030675
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. CONSOLIDATE
On February 28, 2019 Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2019021085. On March 18, 2019, Anaheim Union High School District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2019030675 (District’s Case), naming Student. On March 27, 2019, OAH ordered the two cases consolidated. On April 2, 2019, Student dismissed Case 2019021085, and filed a new Request for Due Process in OAH Case 2019040096 (Student’s Case).
On April 10, 2019, Anaheim Union filed a Motion to Consolidate District’s Case with Student’s Case. On April 15, 2019, Student filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that Anaheim Union’s case includes only two issues, while Student’s Case includes eight issues; and that the issues in Anaheim Union’s case may be dispositive of all issues and dispose of the need to try Student’s Case.
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 and District’s Case involve a common question of law or fact.
Student filed its original complaint (2019021085) challenging Anaheim Union’s offer of a free appropriate public education in its individualized education program of December 17,
2018. On March 18, 2019, Anaheim Union filed District’s Case, seeking to implement the
December 2018 IEP without Parent’s consent, and defending the appropriateness of Anaheim Union’s assessments.
Student’s re-filed complaint in 2019040096 is virtually identical to Student’s prior complaint other than adding issues Seven and Eight. Student’s complaint alleges that Student disagrees with Anaheim Union’s assessments, and further disagrees that the implementation of the Anaheim Union IEP delivers a FAPE. The Student’s requested resolutions including obtaining copies of all IEP’s, parental participation in placement of Student, provision of services Student is entitled to and to conduct a “valid IEP meeting”.
All of these issues dovetail into the District’s case, which seeks to defend Anaheim Union’s assessments and the proposed IEP.
Consolidation also furthers the interests of judicial economy because it is highly likely that the same witnesses and documentary evidence will be used in both the District’s Case and Student’s Case. Student’s argument that the disposition of District’s case will result in making Student’s case moot supports granting the motion, in that judicial convenience and expedience of resolution weighs in favor of consolidation.
Accordingly, consolidation is granted. Student’s case is primary.
ORDER
1. District’s s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. All dates previously set in OAH Case Number 2019030675 (District’s Case) are
vacated. The consolidated matter will be set for hearing on the dates in the Scheduling Order issued in OAH Case Number 2019040096 (Student’s Case), unless otherwise ordered.
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 2019040096 (Student’s Case).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 15, 2019
BRIAN H. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings