California OAH special education order · September 26, 2023
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2023060634 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied the parties' joint request for a third continuance because Torrance did not show good cause, gave no details about its conflicting hearing, and the request was not ripe.
This case went to decision
Student v. Torrance Unified School District: Torrance Unified must fund 87 hours of tutoring for missed specialized academic instruction after a transfer; most other claims denied. (2023)
Summary
Student and Torrance jointly asked OAH to continue the due process hearing a third time. Torrance said its counsel's paralegal had entered the wrong date on the second joint continuance request, and that the current dates conflict with another due process hearing. OAH denied the request without prejudice. It found no good cause, said the motion was not ripe, and noted that Torrance gave no information about the conflicting matter or whether that matter should take priority over this case, which was filed on June 19, 2023. All prehearing conference and hearing dates stay as calendared.
Why it matters
Even a joint continuance request can be denied. This is especially true for a repeat request. Parties claiming a calendar conflict should explain what the conflicting case is and why it should take priority.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (f)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
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.
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023060634
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
SEPTEMBER 26, 2023
On September 20, 2023, parties jointly filed a request to continue the due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH.
Torrance contends the hearing should be continued because the paralegal for Torrance’s counsel entered an incorrect date on the second request for continuance parties jointly filed on September 11, 2023. Torrance contends the currently scheduled dates conflict with another due process hearing.
OAH must conduct a due process hearing and issue a decision within 45 days of receiving the due process complaint, unless an extension is granted. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.515(a); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3).) Resolving the due process hearing quickly is legally required. Hearings may only be continued if "good cause" is established. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3).) OAH is guided by the Administrative Procedure Act and the California Rules of Court when ruling on continuance motions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.)
Good cause to continue a hearing may include:
• An essential lay or expert witness is unavailable because of death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances;
• A party is unavailable because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
• A party’s attorney is unavailable because of death, illness, or other
excusable circumstances;
• A new attorney substitutes in, but only if the party establishes that the
substitution is required in the interests of justice;
• A new party is added, and the new party has not had a reasonable
opportunity to prepare for trial, or other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial regarding the new party's involvement;
• A party is unable to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
• The case has a significant and unexpected change which makes the case
not ready for trial.
Generally, continuances are disfavored. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
The motion did not establish good cause to continue the due process hearing for a third time. This motion is not ripe. Moreover, Torrance did not provide any additional information regarding the conflicted due process matter and whether it has priority over the instant case which was filed on June 19, 2023.
The request is denied without prejudice. All prehearing conference and due process hearing dates are confirmed and will proceed as calendared.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings