California OAH special education order · February 17, 2021
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2020100618 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH denied Orcutt's opposed continuance request because a second district attorney, Kidd D. Crawford, could handle this hearing while lead counsel covered a conflicting case.
This case went to decision
Student v. Orcutt Union School District: Orcutt Union must fund 428 compensatory hours and IEEs after COVID-era failures to serve a student with autism. (2021)
Summary
Orcutt asked to continue the hearing because its attorney, Meagan M. Kinsey, had a scheduling conflict with another OAH case against Long Beach Unified School District. Student opposed the request, citing Student's right to a speedy resolution and pointing out that Orcutt had other counsel. OAH denied the request and kept all prehearing conference and hearing dates. It found that Attorney Kidd D. Crawford also represents Orcutt, and Orcutt gave no reason why he could not handle this case while Kinsey handled the Long Beach matter.
Why it matters
A scheduling conflict for one attorney is not good cause for a continuance when another attorney already on the case can step in. Parents can oppose delay by pointing to the other counsel available to the district.
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)
People named in the order
- Meagan M. Kinsey, Attorney for Orcutt Union School District
- Kidd D. Crawford, Attorney for Orcutt Union School District
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,
v.
ORCUTT UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020100618
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
On February 12, 2021, Orcutt Union School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, a request to continue this matter, based upon a scheduling conflict of Orcutt’s counsel, Meagan M. Kinsey. On February 16, 2021, Student opposed the request based upon Student’s right to a speedy resolution and asserting that Orcutt had alternative counsel to represent it in this matter. On February 16, 2021, Orcutt replied to Student’s opposition.
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).)
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. Orcutt points to a scheduling conflict between this matter and the case Student v. Long Beach Unified School District, OAH Case No. 2020100586.
Both matters were filed on October 19, 2020. However, in OAH Case No. 2020100586, Attorney Kinsey is the sole attorney for Long Beach Unified School District, while in this Kidd D. Crawford also represents Orcutt, and no reason given why Attorney Crawford cannot represent Orcutt in this matter while Attorney Kinsey represents Long Beach Unified School District. According, Orcutt did not establish good cause for a continuance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings