California OAH special education order · July 30, 2025
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2025051107, 2025070607 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH consolidated Student's and Natomas' due process cases because both challenge the same November 2024 IEP and its amendments, keeping Student's case as primary and its hearing dates.
Summary
Natomas moved to consolidate its due process case with Student's earlier-filed case. Student opposed only because Natomas had served its complaint by email alone. OAH granted Student's separate motion to quash service, and Natomas then served the complaint and motion properly; Student filed no further opposition. OAH granted consolidation because both cases raise a common question: whether the November 15, 2024 IEP, as amended January 16 and April 10, 2025, is appropriate. Student's case was made the primary case, its dates were kept, and the 45-day decision timeline runs from Student's filing date.
Why it matters
A family can insist on proper service of a district's complaint, but fixing a service defect will not stop consolidation when both cases are about the same IEP. Parents can ask that consolidation keep their own case's hearing dates and decision timeline, and here OAH did so.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025051107
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025070607
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
JULY 30, 2025
On May 27, 2025, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025051107, Student’s Case, naming Natomas Unified School District.
On July 15, 2025, Natomas filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025070607, Natomas’ Case, naming Student.
On July 18, 2025, Student filed a Motion to Quash Service in Natomas’ Case, arguing that Natomas’ complaint was improperly served by email only. Student also filed an Opposition to the Motion to Consolidate based on the same argument as to improper service. Student also stated that, other than the improper service, there was no other opposition to consolidation, if the dates for the consolidated matters remained as scheduled in Student’s Case.
By Order dated July 23, 2023, the Motion to Quash for improper service was granted. Immediately thereafter on July 23, 2025, Natomas re-served both the complaint and the Motion to Consolidate properly. There has been no further response or opposition from Student.
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, the appropriateness of the last agreed upon and implemented individualized education program dated November 15, 2024, as amended on January 16, 2025 and April 10, 2025, to which Parent has not consented. Accordingly, consolidation is granted. The consolidated matters will proceed on the dates scheduled in Student’s Case.
1. Natomas’ Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Student’s Case is designated as the primary case. All dates previously set
in Natomas’ Case, OAH case number 2025070607, are vacated.
3. 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 Primary Case, OAH case number 2025051107.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings