California OAH special education order · July 21, 2025
Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2025060318 · ALJ Chris Butchko
OAH granted Saugus's opposed four-week continuance over Parent's objection, finding the district is entitled to its counsel of choice when counsel has earlier-filed OAH hearings and the delay is not excessive.
This case went to decision
Student v. Saugus Union School District: Saugus Union School District prevails on all claims that it isolated a first grader at lunch as discipline. (2025)
This case went to decision
Student v. Saugus Union School District: Saugus Union did not need a manifestation determination review after a first grader was sent to the office twice; claim denied. (2025)
Summary
Saugus asked to continue the prehearing conference and due process hearing because its counsel was scheduled for other OAH hearings that were filed earlier and had priority. Parent opposed the request as undue delay, because a new school year would begin before the proposed hearing date. The ALJ found good cause, reasoning that Saugus is entitled to its chosen counsel and that a four-week delay is not excessive. The ALJ then reset the prehearing conference to August 11, 2025, and the hearing to August 26–28, 2025.
Why it matters
Even though continuances are disfavored, OAH may grant a short delay over a parent's objection when district counsel has conflicting, earlier-filed OAH hearings. Parents who oppose a continuance should show concrete prejudice from the delay, not just its length.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515
- 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
- Chris Butchko, Administrative Law Judge
- Kristen Meyers, Attorney for Saugus Union School District
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.
SAUGUS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060318
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE
GRANTING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
JULY 21, 2025
On July 21, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Chris Butchko, Office of Administrative Hearings held a telephonic prehearing conference. The Administrative Law Judge will be referred to as an ALJ. The prehearing conference will be referred to as a PHC. Student’s parent appeared on behalf of Student. Kristen Meyers, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Saugus Union School District. The PHC was recorded.
Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION
Saugus moved to continue the prehearing conference and due process hearing due to the unavailability of counsel who is scheduled to appear in other hearings before OAH with higher priority because they were filed before this case.
The motion was timely filed three days before the prehearing conference. The motion was opposed by Parent on the grounds of undue delay, given that a new school year will begin prior to the hearing date proposed by Saugus.
A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored.
Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance or imposing conditions on the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
The request for continuance is granted for good cause. Saugus is entitled to its counsel of choice at hearing, provided that any delay incurred is not excessive. Saugus seeks a four-week continuance due to the other matters before OAH. That is not excessive delay. The ALJ discussed specific dates for the PHC and hearing with the parties, and agreement was reached on the following schedule.
All previously scheduled dates are vacated. The case shall proceed as follows:
PREHEARING CONFERENCE will be held on Monday, August 11, 2025, at
10:00 AM.
All other prehearing matters shall be addressed at the resumption of the prehearing conference on August 11, 2025. All prehearing motions must be filed three business days before the PHC.
DUE PROCESS HEARING will be held Tuesday, August 26, 2025, through Thursday, August 28, 2025.
The hearing will be conducted via telephone or videoconference and shall begin at 9:30 AM and end at 3:30 PM on all days, unless otherwise ordered. The hearing shall continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates, and shall subpoena witnesses if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will be available to testify. A witness will not be regarded as unavailable for purposes of showing “good cause” to continue the hearing if the witness is not properly notified of the hearing date or properly subpoenaed.
SETTLEMENT
The parties shall immediately inform OAH in writing if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing. If the parties reach a settlement 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.
If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 5:00 PM the day before the 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. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to appear for the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ.
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
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 PHC.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Chris Butchko Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings