California OAH special education order · December 5, 2025
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2025110803, 2025120041 · ALJ Daniel Senter
OAH consolidated Santa Monica's case with Student's case over Student's opposition because both cases ask whether the district's assessments were legally compliant and whether Student is entitled to independent educational evaluations.
Summary
Santa Monica moved to consolidate its due process case with Student's earlier-filed case. Student opposed, arguing that Student's case raised more issues, covered a longer time period, and involved different witnesses. Student also tucked a motion to dismiss into the opposition. OAH granted consolidation because both cases share a common question: whether the October 2025 psychoeducational assessment and the September 2025 occupational therapy assessment were legally compliant, and whether Student is entitled to IEEs. The cases also share witnesses and evidence, and consolidation avoids inconsistent rulings. OAH made Student's case the primary case and refused to address the motion to dismiss because a new motion cannot be raised inside an opposition.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case to defend an assessment after a parent requests an IEE, OAH will likely combine it with the parent's broader case, even if the parent's case has more issues. Any motion to dismiss must be filed as its own motion, not included in an opposition to a different motion.
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
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025110803
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025120041
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
DECEMBER 5, 2025
On November 17, 2025, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025110803, called Student’s Case, naming Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
On November 25, 2025, Santa Monica filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2025120041, called Santa Monica’s Case, naming Student.
On December 3, 2025, Santa Monica filed a motion to consolidate its case with Student’s case. The motion to consolidate was made on the grounds that both cases involve common questions of law and fact and involve some of the same evidence and witnesses.
On December 4, 2025, Student filed an opposition to consolidation. Student also included a Motion to Dismiss Santa Monica’s case in the opposition. A new motion cannot be raised in an opposition to another motion. Accordingly, Student’s Motion to Dismiss is not addressed. Nothing in this order prevents Student from filing a Motion to Dismiss. Regarding consolidation, Student opposed asserting Student’s case involves significantly more issues than Santa Monica’s, a longer period of time, and different witnesses.
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, both cases involve a common question of law or fact, specifically, whether Santa Monica’s October 10, 2025, psychoeducational assessment and September 2025, occupational therapy assessment are legally compliant and whether Student is entitled to independent educational evaluations. Although Student’s complaint raises additional issues, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because both cases involve some of the same witnesses and evidence. Additionally, it prevents inconsistent rulings on the duplicative issues raised in each case. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
ORDER
1. Santa Monica’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Student’s Case is designated as the primary case. All dates previously set
in Santa Monica’s Case, OAH case number 2025120041, are vacated.
3. The prehearing conference and due process hearing in this consolidated
matter shall be held on the dates currently scheduled in the Student’s Case, OAH case number 2025110803.
4. 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 Student’s Case, OAH case number 2025110803.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Daniel Senter Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings