California OAH special education order · February 11, 2026
Order Denying Student's Peremptory Challenge
OAH Case No. 2025110210, 2025110972 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's peremptory challenge to ALJ Hatfield as untimely, filed only after Student lost the expedited hearing, and because the consolidated matter remains one case until Cupertino's case is resolved.
This case went to decision
Student v. Cupertino Union School District: Cupertino Union wins expedited case: no disciplinary removals proven, so no manifestation determination was required. (2026)
Summary
After ALJ Kara Hatfield issued an Expedited Decision in which Cupertino prevailed on all issues, Student dismissed its remaining non-expedited issues. Student then filed a peremptory challenge to ALJ Hatfield for Cupertino's still-pending case, arguing the cases were only "previously consolidated." Presiding ALJ Tara Doss denied the challenge. She found it untimely because ALJ Hatfield was assigned before the expedited hearing began, and it looked like an improper attempt to change judges after an unfavorable ruling. She also found that reassignment would waste resources and risk inconsistent rulings, and that consolidated cases remain one matter until each case is finally resolved.
Why it matters
A peremptory challenge must be made early, before the hearing starts or by the start of the prehearing conference. Dismissing your own case in a consolidated matter does not create a fresh chance to challenge the judge in the other side's case.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1034
People named in the order
- Kara Hatfield, Administrative Law Judge (challenged)
- Tara Doss, Presiding Administrative Law Judge
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
CUPERTINO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025110210
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025110972
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S PEREMPTORY CHALLENGE
FEBRUARY 11, 2026
On January 8, 2026, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, consolidated Student’s case, OAH case number 2025110210, with Cupertino Union School District’s case, OAH 2025110972. Student’s case contained expedited and non- expedited issues. On February 4, 2026, Administrative Law Judge, called ALJ, Kara Hatfield issued an Expedited Decision after nine hearing days. Also, on February 4, 2026, after OAH issued the Expedited Decision, Student filed a request to dismiss its case. On February 5, 2026, OAH dismissed Student’s non-expedited issues without prejudice.
Cupertino’s case is scheduled to proceed on the dates originally set for the consolidated cases. The prehearing conference is February 13, 2026, and the due process hearing is February 24, through 26, 2026.
On February 9, 2026, Student filed a notice of peremptory challenge as to ALJ Hatfield. The peremptory challenge is made pursuant to Government Code section 11425.40, subdivision (d), of the Administrative Procedures Act, and California Code of Regulations, title 1, section 1034. Student argues the challenge is appropriate because the February 13, 2026 prehearing conference will be ALJ Hatfield’s first involvement with Cupertino’s case and refers to the matter as “previously consolidated.”
Government Code section 11425.40, subdivision (d), establishes the criteria for disqualification of the presiding officer. A party is entitled to one peremptory challenge, also called disqualification without cause, to an ALJ assigned to an OAH hearing. (Cal.
Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1034, subds. (a) & (b); Gov. Code, § 11425.40, subd. (d).) A peremptory challenge is not allowed if made after the hearing starts. In addition, if at the time of a scheduled prehearing conference, an ALJ has been assigned to the hearing, any challenge to the assigned ALJ must be made no later than the start of that prehearing conference. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1034, subd. (c).) A peremptory challenge is not allowed on reconsideration or remand. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1034, subd. (a).)
The peremptory challenge is denied for several reasons. First, the challenge is untimely. ALJ Hatfield was assigned to Student’s case on December 4, 2025. Student did not timely challenge ALJ Hatfield prior to the expedited hearing, which began on December 9, 2025, but instead waited until after OAH issued the Expedited Decision, in which Cupertino prevailed on all issues. Student’s challenge at this late date appears to be an attempt to change judges after receiving an unfavorable ruling from ALJ Hatfield’s decision. This is an improper use of the peremptory challenge.
Second, granting Student’s challenge would not support judicial efficiency or economy. ALJ Hatfield has ruled on multiple motions regarding the consolidated matter. ALJ Hatfield also reviewed documentary evidence and heard testimony from several witnesses over nine days at the expedited hearing. Some of the evidence considered during the expedited hearing may be relevant to Cupertino’s case.
Assigning the case to a new judge would require that judge to duplicate the work ALJ Hatfield has already done, which is not a proper use of OAH’s resources. Further, assigning the case to a new judge may result in an inconsistent ruling.
Finally, Student incorrectly argues the matter was “previously consolidated”
allowing Student to challenge ALJ Hatfield in Cupertino’s case. Once cases are consolidated, they are treated as one matter until the final disposition of each case. This means that even though OAH issued the Expedited Decision and granted Student’s request to dismiss the non-expedited issues, the matter remains consolidated until the final disposition of Cupertino’s case.
ALJ Hatfield remains assigned to the consolidated matter and all scheduled dates remain on calendar as to Cupertino’s case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tara Doss Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings