California OAH special education order · December 9, 2020
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Determining Motion to Bifurcate as Moot
OAH Case No. 2020120240, 2020100428 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Oakland's assessment case because the cases involve different legal issues, time periods, and evidence, and found Student's bifurcation motion moot.
Summary
Student asked OAH to consolidate Oakland's due process case with Student's newly filed case. Student also asked, if consolidation was granted, to bifurcate Oakland's single issue. Oakland's case asked only whether it could assess Student under an August 20, 2020 assessment plan without Parent's consent. Student's case alleged failures to assess over several school years and a failure to file for due process after Parent refused an April 2020 assessment plan. Over Oakland's objection, OAH denied consolidation because the cases share no common legal issues, cover different time periods, and will need different evidence, so consolidation would not save time. The bifurcation motion was moot.
Why it matters
Related assessment disputes between the same parties will not be combined unless they share a common question of law or fact. Asking to bifurcate the very case you want consolidated can undercut the claim that consolidation saves time.
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,
v.
OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020120240
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
DETERMINING MOTION TO BIFURCATE AS MOOT
DECEMBER 9, 2020
On October 14, 2020, Oakland Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2020100428, District’s Case, naming Student.
On December 7, 2020, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2020120240, Student’s Case, naming Oakland.
On December 7, 2020, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate District’s Case with Student’s Case.
On December 7, Student filed a motion to bifurcate District’s Case’s sole issue, in the event consolidation is granted.
On December 9, 2020, Oakland filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that consolidation would not serve the interest of judicial economy and would result in prejudice to Oakland by delaying the resolution of their case. On December 9, 2020, Student filed a response to Oakland’s opposition.
CONSOLIDATION
No statute or regulation specifically provides a standard to be applied in deciding a motion to consolidate special education cases. However, OAH will generally consolidate matters that involve the same parties, a common question of law and/or fact, 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, District’s Case involves the sole issue of whether Oakland may assess Student pursuant to the assessment plan dated August 20, 2020, without Parent’s consent. Student’s case involves multiple issues, none of which include the appropriateness of Oakland’s proposal to assess pursuant to the August 20, 2020 assessment plan. Although Student’s case does include assessment related issues, they relate to allegations that Oakland failed to assess Student’s suspected disabilities during multiple school years. Student‘s Case also includes an issue alleging that Oakland failed to file for due process when Parent refused to sign an assessment plan in April 2020.
Student’s Case and District’s Case do not involve common legal issues. To the contrary, District’s Case and Student’s Case involve different legal issues, a different time period, and will likely require different documentary evidence. Accordingly, consolidation does not further the interests of judicial economy. This conclusion is further evidenced by Student’s request to bifurcate Oakland’s issue, should consolidation be granted.
Having denied Student’s motion to consolidate, Student’s motion to bifurcate is moot.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
2. Student’s Motion to Bifurcate is moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings