California OAH special education order · September 11, 2019
Order Denying the Parties Joint Request for a Hearing Continuance
OAH Case No. 2019040859, 2019070446 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH denied the parties' joint request to continue the consolidated hearing because they gave no reason for it and this would not be the first continuance.
This case went to decision
Student v. Lompoc Unified School District (consolidated): Lompoc Unified denied FAPE through inadequate behavior supports, a flawed speech assessment, and an involuntary transfer; 240 compensatory hours ordered. (2020)
Summary
Student and Lompoc jointly asked OAH to continue the October 2019 hearing in their consolidated cases, but gave no reason. OAH found no good cause. It noted that continuances are disfavored under the 45-day timeline and that the hearing had already been reset once. The request was denied without prejudice, and all prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Even when both sides agree, OAH will not grant a continuance automatically. A request must explain the specific good cause, especially when the hearing has already been moved.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019040859
and
LOMPOC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019070446
ORDER DENYING THE PARTIES JOINT REQUEST FOR A HEARING
CONTINUANCE
On April 18, 2019, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, a Request for Due Process Hearing in case number 2019040859, Student’s Case, naming Lompoc Unified School District. Office of Administrative Hearings will be referred to as OAH. A Request for Due Process Hearing is also referred to as a complaint. Lompoc Unified School District will be referred to as Lompoc.
On July 9, 2019, Lompoc filed a complaint in case number 2019070446, Lompoc’s Case, naming Student. On July 22, 2019, OAH consolidated Student’s Case and Lompoc’s Case. On July 31, 2019, Student filed a Motion to Amend her complaint and an amended complaint in Student’s Case. On August 6, 2019, OAH granted Student’s motion to amend the complaint. OAH reset the hearing dates to October 1, 2, and 3, 2019.
On September 9, 2019, the parties jointly filed with OAH a request to continue this matter. The parties did not state any reason for the continuance request.
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. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3); 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 or imposing conditions on the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
This is not a first hearing continuance, and the parties did not explain why they needed the continuance. The parties failed to establish good cause for a hearing continuance. 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.
The continuance request is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 11, 2019 Sabrina Kong Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings