California OAH special education order · January 11, 2022
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2021070856, 2021110576 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Etiwanda's triennial assessment case because Student's 15 FAPE and assessment claims through April 2021 shared no common question of law or fact with it.
Summary
Student asked OAH to consolidate Student's due process case, which raised 15 issues about whether Etiwanda appropriately assessed Student and offered a free appropriate public education through April 2021, with Etiwanda's later case. Etiwanda's case asked whether it could do a triennial assessment under an August 6, 2021 assessment plan without Parents' consent. Etiwanda opposed, arguing the cases raised different questions of law. OAH agreed that the cases shared no common question of law or fact, found consolidation would not serve judicial economy, and denied the motion.
Why it matters
A parent's claims about past FAPE denials may not be combined with a district's case seeking to assess without consent, even when the same student and district are involved. Families may need to litigate both cases separately.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021070856
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
JANUARY 11, 2022
On July 27, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2021070856, Student’s Case, naming Etiwanda School District. On November 19, 2021, Etiwanda filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2021110576, Etiwanda’s Case, naming Student.
On January 4, 2022, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate the cases. On January 5, 2022, Etiwanda opposed the motion based upon the cases having different questions of law.
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, Students’ Case alleges 15 issues pertaining to whether Etiwanda appropriately assessed and offered Student a free appropriate public education, through April 2021. Etiwanda’s Case asserts one issue, whether it may assess Student for a triennial assessment, pursuant to an August 6, 2021 assessment plan, without Parents’ consent. Student’s Case and Etiwanda’s do not involve a common question of law or fact. Specifically, the issues asserted in Student’s case do not involve common questions of law or fact with the issue asserted in Etiwanda’s Case. Therefore, consolidation does not further the interests of judicial economy and Student’s request is denied.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H. Kamoroff Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings