California OAH special education order · March 12, 2025

Order Denying Request for Continuance

OAH Case No. 2025010823 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin

OAH denied Downey's request to continue the hearing. Its attorney's other hearings had not started, while this case was already underway with the non-expedited portion set for March 18, 2025.

Denied Scheduling and continuances

This case went to decision

Student v. Downey Unified School District: Downey Unified had no basis of knowledge of a disability, so it owed a general education second grader no manifestation review. (2025)

Summary

Downey asked OAH to continue the due process hearing because its main attorney was busy with other previously scheduled due process hearings. Student did not respond. OAH found no good cause because the other cases had not yet started, while this case was already ongoing. The expedited decision had issued on March 10, 2025, and the non-expedited hearing was set to begin March 18, 2025, so the hearing dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

An attorney's scheduling conflict with hearings that have not yet begun is not good cause to delay a case that is already underway. Districts cannot easily push back hearings that are moving forward, even when the request is unopposed.

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

continuance good cause attorney unavailability hearing dates expedited hearing

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.

DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025010823

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

MARCH 12, 2025

On March 4, 2025, Downey filed a request to continue the due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH. Student did not file a response.

Downey contends the hearing should be continued because its main attorney is unavailable due to other previously scheduled due process hearings.

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).)

Downey did not establish good cause to continue the due process hearing. The cases Downey identified have not started. The instant case in this matter is on-going.

The expedited due process decision was issued on March 10, 2025. The non-expedited portion of the ongoing hearing is scheduled to commence on March 18, 2025.

The request is denied. The due process hearing dates are confirmed and will proceed as calendared.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings