California OAH special education order · October 30, 2025
Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue and Second Mediation
OAH Case No. 2025071092 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH refused to consolidate twins' separate due process cases against Los Angeles Unified. Each child has individual IEP rights and different facts. OAH also denied a continuance and second mediation without prejudice.
Summary
Student's counsel represents Student and Student's twin, who have separate due process cases. Counsel moved to consolidate the two cases, continue the hearing to December 2025, and hold a second, full-day mediation, arguing that most evidence would be identical. Los Angeles opposed consolidation. OAH denied consolidation because the cases involve different students, the complaints show factual differences, and the IDEA requires each child's case to be decided on that child's individual needs. OAH denied the continuance and second mediation without prejudice for lack of good cause, noting that parties can request a full-day mediation in the first place and that Student did not submit mediation dates or a length agreed to by both sides.
Why it matters
Even siblings or twins with nearly identical IEPs may not get their cases consolidated, because OAH treats each child as a separate party with individualized IDEA rights. Families wanting a longer mediation should request it up front, or submit mutually agreed dates and duration when asking for another session.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025071092
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
DENYING MOTION TO CONTINUE AND SECOND
MEDIATION
OCTOBER 30, 2025
On July 10, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student M filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a request for due process hearing in OAH case number 2025070393, Student M’s Case, naming Los Angeles Unified School District and Our Community Charter School.
On July 29, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student T filed a request for due process hearing in OAH case number 2025071092, Student T’s Case, naming Los Angeles Unified School District and Our Community Charter School.
On October 16, 2025, Parents on behalf of Student T filed a motion to consolidate the cases and mediation and continuance request, seeking a new hearing date in December 2025. The motion was supported by a declaration from Student T’s counsel, who represents both Student M and T. Student T asserts that consolidation will result in judicial economy because Student M and Student T are twins and most of the hearing evidence will be identical.
On October 16, 2025, Our Community Charter filed a non-opposition. On October 28, 2025, Student filed a request to dismiss Our Community Charter in both cases, and Our Community Charter was dismissed that day.
On October 21, 2025, Los Angeles opposed consolidation but did not oppose Student T’s request for a second mediation. Los Angeles asserts that because the cases involve two different children, petitioners must present a full and complete case for each child and consolidation would not result in judicial economy or consistency with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, referred to as the IDEA.
CONSOLIDATION
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, Student M’s Case and Student T’s Case do not involve the same parties.
Specifically, the cases involve two different students. The IDEA emphasizes the individual nature of special education eligibility and related services for each student.
Although Student T asserts that Student M and Student T are twins, each is individually entitled to their own, individual rights and “individualized educational program,” called an IEP, under the IDEA.
Moreover, despite Student T’s assertion that each child’s IEP documents are identical in all relevant aspects, the complaints reveal factual differences. Further, while the issues pled for hearing are facially similar, their adjudication will necessarily be specific to each student in each case.
Given the different parties and facts, Student T has failed to demonstrate that the cases involve a common question of law or fact such that consolidation would further the interests of judicial economy or prevent inconsistent rulings. Further, Student T has failed to demonstrate how any anticipated convenience of consolidating these two cases would be consistent with the IDEA’s protections designed to address each child’s individual needs. The motion for consolidation is denied.
CONTINUANCE AND MEDIATION
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. OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether good cause exists to grant an extension. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
Student T’s motion fails to demonstrate good cause for a continuance or second mediation. Student T requests a new hearing date sometime in December 2025 to accommodate a second, full-day mediation. Student T asserts the first mediation was too brief, as it was a half-day mediation. Following Student T’s instant motion, OUR Community Charter was dismissed from this case. Student T’s motion fails to provide good cause for a second mediation with Los Angeles or for the continuance sought.
Parties are free to request half-day or full-day mediation. In addition, participation in mediation requires agreement of both parties, and while Los Angeles did not oppose a second mediation, Student T did not submit requested dates or duration of mediation agreed to by both parties. Student T’s motion for continuance and mediation is denied without prejudice.
ORDER
1. Student T’s motion to consolidate is denied.
2. Student T’s motion to continue and for a second mediation is denied
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings