California OAH special education order · December 1, 2021
Order Denying Student's Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2021110471 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Murrieta Valley's assessment case because the motion was untimely without good cause and the cases share no common question of law or fact.
This case went to decision
Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. Student: Murrieta Valley Unified may not reassess an eighth grader without consent because it made no reasonable effort to obtain Parents' informed consent. (2022)
Summary
Student asked OAH to consolidate Student's FAPE case, which alleges Murrieta Valley removed IEP services, delayed an IEP meeting, and failed to assess, with Murrieta Valley's later case seeking to assess Student under an October 22, 2021 assessment plan without parental consent. Murrieta Valley opposed. OAH denied the motion. It found the motion was filed after the motion deadline without showing good cause, the cases share no common question of law or fact, separate rulings would not risk inconsistent results, and Student gave no declaration explaining how consolidation would save time.
Why it matters
A district's request to assess over parent objection is usually treated as separate from a parent's earlier claims that the district denied a FAPE. Parents who want related cases combined should file on time and support the motion with a declaration explaining how combining them saves time or avoids conflicting rulings.
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:
MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021110471
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
DECEMBER 1, 2021
On September 21, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2021090663, Student’s Case, naming Murrieta Valley Unified School District, referred to as Murrieta Valley. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
On November 16, 2021, Murrieta Valley filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2021110471, Murrieta Valley’s Case, naming Parents on behalf of Student.
On November 29, 2021, OAH held a prehearing videoconference in Murrieta Valley’s Case. On November 29, 2021, prior to the prehearing videoconference, Student filed a Motion to Consolidate Student’s Case with Murrieta Valley’s Case. OAH’s November 29, 2021 Order Following Prehearing Videoconference provided Murrieta Valley an opportunity to respond to Student’s Motion to Consolidate.
Murrieta Valley filed an Opposition to Motion to Consolidate on December 1, 2021 on the grounds Student’s Case and Murrieta Valley’s Case do not involve common issues of law and fact, consolidation will not further the interests of judicial economy by saving time or preventing inconsistent rulings, and Student’s motion was untimely.
Student filed a Reply to Murrieta Valley’s Opposition to Motion to Consolidate on December 1, 2021.
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].)
OAH’s November 18, 2021 Scheduling Order Setting Telephonic Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing set November 24, 2021, as the last day to file motions. Any motions filed after this due date must show good cause as to why it was not timely filed. Student’s Motion to Consolidate was not timely filed within three business days of the prehearing videoconference. Student’s Motion to Consolidate failed to establish good cause for why the Motion to Consolidate was filed untimely.
Further, Student’s Case and Murrieta Valley’s Case do not involve a common question of law or fact. Specifically, Student’s Case alleges that Murrieta Valley denied Student a free appropriate public education, known as FAPE, by unilaterally removing services in Student’s individualized education program, called IEP, without filing for due process, failing to timely hold an IEP team meeting during the 2019-2020 school year, and failing to timely and appropriately assess Student in all areas of suspected disabilities in connection with Student’s September 8, 2020 IEP. Murrieta Valley’s Case seeks a determination that Murrieta Valley is entitled to assess Student according to its October 22, 2021 assessment plan without parental consent.
While the cases involve the same parties, they do not involve a common question of law. The issue of whether Murrieta Valley may assess Student pursuant to the October 22, 2021 assessment plan is unrelated to whether Murrieta Valley denied Student a FAPE based upon the allegations in Student’s Case. Further, consolidation is not necessary to prevent inconsistent rulings because a determination whether Murrieta Valley may assess Student pursuant to its October 22, 2021 assessment plan is unrelated to whether Murrieta Valley previously denied Student a FAPE as alleged in Student’s Case. Finally, Student fails to offer any specific reasons supported by declaration explaining why consolidation would further the interests of judicial economy.
ORDER
1. Student’s Motion to Consolidate is denied.
2. All dates in Student’s Case and Murrieta Valley’s Case shall proceed as
currently scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings