California OAH special education order · December 1, 2021
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2021110737, 2021100357 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH consolidated Student's and Pleasanton's cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether the April 29, 2021 IEP offered a FAPE and will involve the same witnesses and documents.
This case went to decision
Student v. Pleasanton Unified School District: Pleasanton Unified denied FAPE by lacking a complete, signed IEP; must reimburse private services, less amounts already paid, and train staff. (2022)
Summary
Pleasanton filed its own due process complaint and moved to consolidate it with Student's earlier-filed case. Student objected that consolidation would delay Student's case and noted Parent had a pre-planned business trip. OAH granted the motion because both cases share a common question, whether the April 29, 2021 IEP offered Student a FAPE, and would use the same witnesses and documents. Pleasanton's case was made the primary case, which sets the hearing only one week later than Student's original date, avoids Parent's trip, and resets the 45-day decision timeline to Pleasanton's filing date.
Why it matters
A district can file its own complaint about the same IEP and get it consolidated with a parent's case, even over the parent's objection, which can shift the hearing dates and the decision timeline. Objections based on delay carry little weight when the new schedule is only slightly later and does not conflict with the family's known commitments.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021110737
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021100357
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
DECEMBER 1, 2021
On October 13, 2021 Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings in OAH case number 2021100357, naming Pleasanton Unified School District as respondent. On November 29, 2021, Pleasanton filed a request for due process in OAH case number 2021110737 naming Student as respondent.
On November 29, 2021, Pleasanton filed a Motion to Consolidate its case with Student’s case. On November 30, 2021, Student filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that consolidating the cases at this stage would delay Student’s case.
Student also noted that Parent had a pre-planned business trip she was obligated to take on January 11, 2021. Pleasanton filed a reply 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].)
Here, Student’s Case and Pleasanton’s Case involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether the April 29, 2021, IEP offers Student a free, appropriate public education or FAPE. Additionally, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because the issues raised by both parties will necessarily involve testimony from the same witnesses and consideration of common documents. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
Pleasanton’s case is designated as primary, and the consolidated matters will proceed as scheduled in Pleasanton’s case. This is only one week later than Student’s previously scheduled matter, it does not conflict with Parent’s business trip and allows both sides to timely submit prehearing conference statements.
ORDER
1. Pleasanton’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Pleasanton’s Case is designated as the primary case. All dates previously set
in Student’s Case, OAH case number 2021100357, are hereby vacated.
3. The consolidated case shall proceed on the dates currently scheduled in
Pleasanton’s case, OAH case No. 2021110737.
4. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the decision in the consolidated cases
shall be based on the date of the filing of the complaint in Pleasanton’s Case, OAH case number 2021110737.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings