California OAH special education order · June 24, 2025
Order Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2025041199 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied New Haven's continuance request because an earlier order had already moved the hearing to July 8-10, 2025, which ended counsel's conflict and most witness conflicts.
This case went to decision
Student v. New Haven Unified School District: New Haven Unified prevails on all three claims over speech services, school records, and an independent psychoeducational evaluation. (2025)
Summary
New Haven asked to continue the July 1-3, 2025 hearing dates because its counsel had a conflict and four key witnesses were unavailable. Student did not respond. Before OAH ruled, a separate order had already moved the hearing to July 8, 9, and 10, 2025, so OAH judged the request against those new dates. Counsel's conflict was moot because the other case had been continued, and all but one witness would be available. New Haven gave no reason why the remaining witness, Jennifer Javier, had to testify on July 8, so OAH found no good cause and kept the hearing dates.
Why it matters
Continuances require a showing of good cause, and OAH will look at whether a witness's testimony can simply be scheduled on another hearing day. A district cannot rely on an outdated motion once hearing dates have changed.
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
People named in the order
- Jennifer Javier, District witness
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.
NEW HAVEN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025041199
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
JUNE 24, 2025
On April 25, 2025, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming New Haven Unified School District as respondent. On May 12, 2025, pursuant to an order determining the original complaint partially insufficient, Student filed an amended complaint. Later on May 12, 2025, a scheduling order was issued setting the hearing on July 1, 2, and 3, 2025.
On May 23, 2025, the parties’ joint request to mediate was granted. On June 19, 2025, OAH issued an order granting a continuance of the hearing due to a scheduling conflict between the mediation date granted and the prehearing conference date scheduled following the filing of Student’s amended complaint. The June 19, 2025 order granting continuance scheduled the case for prehearing conference on June 30, 2025 and for hearing July 8, 9, and 10, 2025. Also on June 19, 2025, New Haven filed a request to continue the originally scheduled hearing dates of July 1, 2, and 3, 2025 due to counsel and witness unavailability.
New Haven contends the hearing should be continued because four key witnesses, would be unavailable for the July 1, 2, and 3, dates. New Haven also argues that their counsel has a hearing conflict for the July 1, 2, and 3, 2025 hearing dates.
OAH did not receive a response to New Haven’s continuance request from Student.
New Haven’s motion was filed prior to the issuance of OAH’s June 19, 2025 continuance order. However, New Haven has neither filed an updated motion for continuance, nor withdrawn the pending motion. Therefore, New Haven’s unavailability will be considered in light of the currently scheduled hearing dates.
OAH must conduct a due process hearing and render a decision within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted. (34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a);
Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3).) Speedy resolution of the due process hearing is mandated by law and continuance of the hearing may be granted only upon a showing of good cause. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3).) In ruling upon a motion for continuance, OAH is guided by the provisions found within the Administrative Procedure Act and the California Rules of Court that concern motions to continue. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.) Generally, continuances of matters are disfavored. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
The currently scheduled dates for hearing are July 8, 9, and 10, 2025. Counsel’s hearing conflict in case number 2025040412 is moot. That case was continued, and the currently scheduled dates do not pose a hearing conflict for counsel.
The witnesses are unavailable on various dates ending July 4, 2025, July 7, 2025 and July 8, 2025. While Jennifer Javier’s conflict does not end until July 8, 2025, New Haven offered no evidence that her testimony was required to be taken on July 8, 2025.
New Haven should be able to work with Parent to schedule Ms. Javier’s testimony on a date other than July 8, 2025.
The request for continuance is denied. New Haven failed to establish good cause for a continuance of the hearing for the dates of July 8, 9, and 10, 2025. The case will proceed as stated in the June 19, 2025 Order granting continuance.
The mediation, prehearing conference, and due process hearing will be held by videoconference or telephone, unless otherwise ordered. The due process hearing will begin at 9:30 AM on all days, and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered.
The hearing will continue day to day, as needed, Mondays and Fridays included, at the discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. Prehearing conference statements and motions are due to OAH no later than three business days before the prehearing conference. Late motions will only be considered if good cause is established for the late filing.
The parties must immediately give potential witnesses the hearing dates, and must subpoena witnesses, if necessary, so they are available to testify. Failing to properly notify or subpoena a witness is not good cause to delay the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings