California OAH special education order · February 2, 2026
Order Granting Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2025100593 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH granted Glendale's contested request to continue the hearing to February 11 and 12, 2026, because Glendale and its counsel were ordered back into an ongoing expedited hearing that takes priority.
This case went to decision
Glendale Unified School District v. Student: Glendale Unified's psychoeducational assessment upheld; student not entitled to an independent evaluation at public expense. (2026)
Summary
Glendale asked OAH to continue the due process hearing set for February 3, 2026, because it was still in an ongoing expedited hearing before OAH. Student opposed. Student argued the case had already been continued several times, the conflict was foreseeable, and further delay would cause prejudice and trouble with Parent's employer. OAH found good cause because Glendale and its counsel had been ordered to return to the other hearing, which takes priority. All prior dates were vacated and the hearing was reset to February 11 and 12, 2026.
Why it matters
A party's obligation to finish another OAH hearing, especially an expedited one, can be good cause for a short continuance even over objection and even after prior delays. Parents opposing a continuance should show concrete prejudice, but OAH may still put an ongoing case first.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a)
- Ed. Code § 56502(f)
- Ed. Code § 56505(f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332
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:
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025100593
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
FEBRUARY 2, 2026
On January 30, 2026, Glendale Unified School District filed a request to continue the due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH. On February 2, 2026, Student filed an opposition. On February 2, 2026, Glendale filed a reply to Student’s opposition.
Glendale contends the hearing must be continued because it remains involved in an ongoing expedited hearing before OAH. This conflicting matter began on January 21, 2026. OAH has ordered the parties in the conflicting matter to continue with the hearing this week, beginning February 2, 2026. Based on the number of witnesses still remaining, Glendale estimates that it will remain in hearing on February 3, 2026, the date the current matter is scheduled to start.
Student contends the hearing should not be continued because it has been continued several times and Glendale should have foreseen such a conflict. Student asserts he will be prejudiced by a further delay and that Parent’s employer will not be amendable to further ambiguity in the hearing schedule and requests for time off.
Glendale replies that it was Student who requested the first continuance in this case.
Further, the reason the ongoing matter was continued to February 2, 2026, was because of an unexpected medical situation affecting the other party.
OAH must conduct a due process hearing and issue a decision within 45 days of receiving the due process complaint, unless an extension is granted. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.515(a); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3).) Resolving the due process hearing quickly is legally required. Hearings may only be continued if "good cause" is established. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3).) OAH is guided by the Administrative Procedure Act and the California Rules of Court when ruling on continuance motions. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332.)
Good cause to continue a hearing may include:
• An essential lay or expert witness is unavailable because of death, illness,
or other excusable circumstances;
• A party is unavailable because of death, illness, or other excusable
circumstances;
• A party’s attorney is unavailable because of death, illness, or other
excusable circumstances;
• A new attorney substitutes in, but only if the party establishes that the
substitution is required in the interests of justice;
• A new party is added, and the new party has not had a reasonable
opportunity to prepare for trial, or other parties have not had a reasonable opportunity to prepare for trial regarding the new party's involvement;
• A party is unable to obtain essential testimony, documents, or other
material evidence despite diligent efforts; or
• The case has a significant and unexpected change which makes the case
not ready for trial.
Generally, continuances are disfavored. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
Here, Glendale established good cause to continue the due process hearing as Glendale and its counsel have been ordered to return to hearing this week to complete an ongoing matter before OAH. That ongoing matter takes priority over this case.
The request is granted. All previously scheduled dates are vacated. The due process hearing will be held on February 11, and 12, 2026. 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.
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.
Theresa Ravandi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings