California OAH special education order · May 29, 2024

Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Consolidate

OAH Case No. 2023120742, 2024040536 · ALJ Charles Marson

OAH granted the joint motion to consolidate Capistrano's and Student's cases because both turn on whether the October 27, 2023 IEP offered a FAPE. It also dismissed Student's unopposed Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims.

This case went to decision

Student v. Capistrano Unified School District (consolidated): Capistrano Unified may implement IEP placing first-grader in special day class without parent consent; student's LRE and aide claims denied. (2024)

Summary

Capistrano filed to validate its October 27, 2023 IEP and implement it without parental consent. Student filed to claim the same IEP denied a FAPE. The parties jointly asked to consolidate the cases, and OAH granted the motion because the cases share parties, witnesses, documents, and the central question of the IEP's adequacy. Capistrano's case was made the primary case and controls the timeline, with hearing set for June 4, 2024. OAH also granted Capistrano's unopposed motion to dismiss Student's Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims as outside OAH's jurisdiction, and set the issues and hearing procedures.

Why it matters

When a district files to validate an IEP and the family files to challenge the same IEP, OAH will readily combine the cases, and the district's earlier filing can control the timeline. Families should also know that OAH hears only IDEA claims: Section 504, ADA, and civil-rights claims will be dismissed, and here the dismissal went unopposed.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
  • J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431
  • Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086
  • M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
  • Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49

Topics

consolidation iep validation least restrictive environment section 504 dismissal oah jurisdiction prehearing conference

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:

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

and

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

OAH CASE NUMBER 2023120742

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024040536

ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE

GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

MAY 29, 2024

On May 24, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Charles Marson, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.

Kathleen M. Loyer, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Alefia Mithaiwala, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Capistrano Unified School District. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:

MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE

On December 20, 2023, Capistrano Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2023120742, naming Student. Capistrano's case is currently scheduled for hearing beginning June 4, 2024.

On April 15, 2024, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2024030673, naming Capistrano. Student’s Case is also currently scheduled for hearing beginning June 4, 2024.

On May 17, 2024, the parties filed a joint motion to consolidate the two cases.

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].)

Capistrano filed for a due process hearing to validate its IEP offer of October 27, 2023, and to obtain an order that it may implement that IEP without parental consent.

Student filed for a due process hearing to assert that the October 27, 2023, IEP offer denied him a FAPE. Both cases involve common questions of law or fact, specifically, whether Capistrano's IEP offer of October 27, 2023, constitutes a FAPE. Therefore, consolidation is warranted. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because both cases involve the same parties, and many of the same witnesses will be required to testify in each proceeding. Each matter will also involve the introduction of many of the same documents. In addition, consolidation avoids the prospect of inconsistent judgments. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.

When consolidating cases, OAH designates the statutory timelines applicable to the consolidated matters to be controlled by one of the cases. Here, the statutory timeline shall be controlled by Capistrano's Case, OAH case number 2023120742.

The joint motion to consolidate is granted. Capistrano's case is designated as the primary case. All dates previously set in Student's case are vacated. 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 the primary case, Capistrano's case, OAH number 2023120742.

The due process hearing in the consolidated cases will be held on the schedule now set for the primary case and will begin on June 4, 2024.

HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION

DUE PROCESS HEARING

The hearing in the consolidated cases will take place on June 4, 5, and 6, 2024, and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. The parties anticipate it will take two to four days to complete the hearing. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing if necessary.

HEARING LOCATION

OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Zoom application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using computer or device with video capability and Zoom.

The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.

ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

ISSUES

The ALJ has slightly altered and reorganized the statement of some issues as allowed by the holdings in J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443, and Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086, 1090.

(But see M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1196, fn. 2 [dictum].) No change in substance has been made. A party believing that an issue has been misstated or improperly omitted shall promptly file a notice in writing stating its concern and referring to supporting portions of the complaint, allowing enough time for the issue to be decided before the hearing. No motion to amend the issues may be made for the first time at the hearing.

In this Order a free appropriate public education is called a FAPE, and an individualized education program is called an IEP. The issues at the due process hearing, and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are:

STUDENT'S ISSUES

1. Did Capistrano deny Student a FAPE in the school year 2023-2024 by

failing to place him in the least restrictive environment?

2. Did Capistrano deny Student a FAPE in the school year 2023-2024 by

failing to offer sufficient or adequate supplementary supports and services, namely, behaviorally trained staff with supervision?

DISTRICT'S ISSUE

May Capistrano implement the October 27, 2023, IEP without parental consent?

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

The resolutions requested by Student include a bilingual one-to-one aide and several independent educational evaluations. Capistrano seeks an order allowing it to implement its October 27, 2024, IEP offer.

Capistrano filed its response to Student’s complaint on April 25, 2024. (M.C. v.

Antelope Valley Union High School Dist., supra, 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.)

EXHIBITS

The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.

Timely uploading electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). If further assistance is needed, please contact OAH at OAHSEOps@dgs.ca.gov.

Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.

IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS

Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. Capistrano must use the letter D before the number to identify its exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means Capistrano's exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.

CONTENT

Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.

Parties should include resumes or curriculum vitae for each witness expected to testify as an expert.

Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.

Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.

WITNESSES

The parties shall serve their list of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.

Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants who have not previously used the Zoom application, may find informative instructions on at by visiting, Getting Started with Zoom at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/200101697.

The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment. If a witness does not have the necessary equipment, the ALJ may permit the witnesses to appear by audio only or by telephone.

“Audio only” means using a computer without video. A witness’s inability to attend the hearing by videoconference will be discussed at the start of the hearing.

The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order.

The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for testimony. Education Code, section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing after consideration of four factors. The first two factors are the issues to be heard and the complexity of facts to be proven. The second two factors are the ability of the parties or their representatives to present their respective cases and the parties’ estimates of the time needed to present their cases.

MEET AND CONFER

The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than the close of business on May 30, 2024, to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take. The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing, electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, and subpoenas, if any. The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits. The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and the authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.

As part of the meet and confer process, Capistrano shall inform Student which proposed witnesses are District employees. Capistrano shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. Capistrano may agree to accept service for a witness under its control or provide Student with the witness’s most recent contact information.

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM

Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.

The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.

Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting a witness to attend the hearing. Any contact information shall not be disclosed to any other person.

EVIDENCE PRESENTATION

In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this case each side has the burden of proof on their respective issues. Student’s case will be presented first followed by Capistrano unless otherwise ordered.

WITNESS LISTS

The parties must provide a joint proposed witness list to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, which party is calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’s expected testimony. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, each party shall prepare a separate written list. Each party must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.

At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony of each witness.

SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION

Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine a witness on all issues when the witness is first called to testify.

Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case-in-chief.

AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY

Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing.

ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS

AUDIO RECORDING

A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.

Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon the following conditions:

1. the OAH recording is the only official recording;

2. the parties shall turn their recording device on and off at the same time

that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;

3. operation of the party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay

the hearing;

4. a party’s recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or

potential witness;

5. the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process

hearing; and

6. participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference nor share or

publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.

Student’s and District’s requests to make audio recordings of the hearing are granted subject to the conditions above.

VIDEO RECORDING

No party, witness or anyone else may videorecord any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.

RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS

Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing.

The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT

Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.

MOTIONS

On May 22, 2024, Capistrano filed a motion to dismiss portions of Student's complaint on the ground that they asserted claims over which OAH has no jurisdiction.

OAH did not receive a response from Student. The motion is granted. Petitioner's claims under section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code are dismissed, as are Student's requests for resolution and relief insofar as they relate to those non-IDEA claims.

Address prehearing motions.

No other prehearing motions are pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.

STIPULATIONS

Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.

CONDUCT OF PARTICIPANTS AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM

All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Participants must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Participants should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. The parties, their representative and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.

LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

Neither party requested an interpreter or any other reasonable accommodation.

A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line. Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at:

https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of-Administrative-Hearings- Services-List-Folder/Request-Reasonable-Accommodations-for-OAH-Legal- Proceedings.

HEARING CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC

The hearing is closed to the public. Special education hearings are closed to the public unless Student requests the hearing to be open to the public.

SETTLEMENT

The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.

In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH by visiting OAH Secure e-file at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.

If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.

Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.

If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.

FAILURE TO COMPLY

The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.

ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS

This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings