California OAH special education order · June 17, 2021
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2021050118 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied San Diego's continuance request without prejudice because none of its counsel's or representative's other hearings actually conflicted with the scheduled June 29, 2021 hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Diego Unified School District: San Diego Unified must reimburse $11,023.36 and fund IEEs after unclear IEP offers and a predetermined COVID mask health plan. (2021)
Summary
San Diego asked OAH to continue the due process hearing, citing possible conflicts with other matters involving its counsel and representative. OAH found no actual conflict. The other case's hearing ends June 23, 2021, before this hearing begins on June 29, 2021. No conflict was shown in the representative's schedule or in counsel's other due process matters, and this case would have calendar preference over the July hearings. The prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed, and San Diego may renew its request if an actual conflict arises.
Why it matters
Continuances are disfavored in special education cases, and a district cannot delay a hearing on possible future scheduling conflicts. It must show a real, present conflict or other good cause. Parents can expect their hearing dates to hold unless the other side proves an actual problem.
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)-(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 MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021050118
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
JUNE 17, 2021
On June 15, 2021, San Diego filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, a request to continue this matter, based upon perceived conflicts between the upcoming hearing and other matters involving San Diego’s counsel and representative.
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 without prejudice. At present there is no conflict between Case No.
2021010659 and this matter because June 23, 2021, is the last day of hearing now scheduled in No. 2021010659, and the hearing in this matter does not begin until June 29, 2021. There is also no present conflict identified in the schedule of the District’s representative. Counsel alleges she is also involved in three earlier-filed due process matters, but does not claim there is now any conflict between the hearings in those matters and the hearing in this one. The hearings now scheduled in July 2021 in which counsel is also involved do not conflict with this matter, and in any event this matter would have preference on the calendar if it goes forward. Should the calendaring of any of these matters change in a way that poses an actual conflict with the hearing in this matter, San Diego may renew its motion. The presently set prehearing conference and due process hearing dates are confirmed and shall proceed as calendared. The continuance request is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings