California OAH special education order · August 11, 2025
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Continue
OAH Case No. 2025030847 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied Palo Alto's last-minute motion to consolidate its new complaint with Student's case and continue the hearing, because consolidation would not serve judicial economy and the district gave no reason for its late filing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Palo Alto Unified School District: Palo Alto Unified must reimburse $18,375 in private school tuition and fund IEEs after predetermined IEPs and an inappropriate placement offer. (2025)
Summary
Student's case had been on file since March 2025, had already been continued twice, and was set for hearing on August 12, 2025. On August 6, 2025, Palo Alto filed its own complaint and moved to consolidate the two cases and push the hearing to the September date set for its new case. Student did not respond. OAH agreed that both cases share a common question about whether the August 14, 2023 IEP offered Student a FAPE, but denied the motion. The district had known the underlying facts since August 2023, gave no reason why the June 2025 amendment IEP could not be decided separately, and gave no reason for filing less than a week before hearing.
Why it matters
A district cannot count on delaying a parent's long-pending hearing by filing its own complaint at the last minute and asking to consolidate. OAH looks at whether consolidation actually saves time, and an unexplained late filing weighs heavily against it.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025030847
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
CONTINUE
AUGUST 11, 2025
On March 21, 2025, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025030847, Student’s Case, naming Palo Alto Unified School District. That matter was twice continued, once on April 21, 2025 and again on May 8, 2025, and set for hearing to begin tomorrow, August 12, 2025.
On August 6, 2025, less than a week prior to the hearing, Palo Alto filed its own Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025080258, and a Motion to Consolidate the cases and to continue the due process hearing to the September date set for the newly-filed complaint. OAH has received no response from Student. The motion is now denied, for the following reasons.
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, both cases involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether or not Palo Alto’s August 14, 2023 individualized education program did or did not offer Student a free appropriate public education. However, consolidation does not further the interests of judicial economy. The current matter has been on file since March, 2025, and twice continued already. The underlying facts on which Palo Alto relies have been known since August of 2023.
Palo Alto further contends that its complaint raises more recent issues, specifically an amendment individualized education program held in June 2025, that should be considered together. However, Palo Alto provides no reasons why that offer cannot be separately adjudicated. Nor did Palo Alto provide any reasons why they did not bring their complaint more timely in June, filling instead less than a week prior to the current hearing dates.
ORDER
Palo Alto’s Motion to Consolidate and Continue is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings