California OAH special education order · June 25, 2026
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2026010385 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH granted Student's unopposed reconsideration motion but again denied a 91-day continuance, finding counsel's conflict between two hearings was a predicament of her own making and not good cause.
This case went to decision
Student v. Earlimart School District (consolidated): Earlimart School District must provide 366 compensatory hours and reimburse $4,218.22 after failing to offer adequate goals and behavior services. (2026)
Summary
Student asked OAH to reconsider its June 23, 2026 denial of a 91-day continuance. Student argued that his attorney would be unprepared or divided between two live hearings in separate cases she filed a day apart. Goleta did not oppose. OAH granted reconsideration but again denied the continuance and confirmed all dates. The ALJ found counsel created the conflict herself, a three-month delay was not a narrow request, and this case was filed first, so counsel could instead seek relief in the other matter. The ALJ also noted that mediation remains available.
Why it matters
A scheduling conflict between two cases filed by the same attorney is unlikely to be good cause for continuing the earlier-filed case. Even an unopposed request may be denied. Counsel should seek relief in the later case or use mediation.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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.
GOLETA UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026010385
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
JUNE 25, 2026
On June 23, 2026, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an order denying a request for continuance. On June 24, 2026, Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On June 25, 2026. Goleta filed a non-opposition to Student’s request.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time, generally within ten days. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s fifteen-page motion offers new facts, circumstances or law. to support reconsideration alleging that the continuance denial prejudices Student because he is facing a hearing without counsel who has prepared his case or proceed with counsel whose attention, preparation, witness management, and ability to protect the record are divided between two live hearings. The motion for reconsideration is granted.
ORDER
On reconsideration, Student’s counsel again fails to demonstrate good cause for a continuance in this matter. Student’s counsel has created a predicament of her own making. She filed two cases in January 2026. OAH case number 2026010385, on January 12, 2026, at 3:24 P.M. The next day, January 13, 2026, she filed OAH case number 20260101501 at 10:02 a.m. Subsequently, the instant matter was amended once due to a finding of insufficiency on January 28, 2026. This matter was amended again on May 20, 2026, following the granting of Student’s motion to amend. Following each amended complaint, OAH issues a new scheduling order as each amended complaint resets the statutory timelines. OAH did not reschedule this hearing on its own motion. The dates are reset to align with the new filing timeline.
The motion for continuance filed on June 23, 2026, requested a 91-day continuance in the instant matter. Even assuming arguendo OAH should force a newer due process hearing to proceed before the instant matter, Student failed to demonstrate good cause for a three-month delay. Contrary to Student’s argument this is not a narrow request.
Should both hearings proceed to hearing without settlement, OAH case number 20260101501 is subordinate in that this is the earlier filed case. Student further argues his attorney is unable to be prepared or will potentially be distracted during his hearing if the continuance is not granted. Counsel filed Student’s case first. Even if a continuance was denied in the other case, nothing in this order prevents Student from seeking reconsideration of that denial as this is the earlier filed case.
It should be noted the Scheduling Order Setting Telephonic Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing issued to parties on May 20, 2026, strongly encouraged mediation and described the process in the attached information. Student elected to not avail himself of the opportunity to mediate his amended complaint, and thus, continue the hearing. This opportunity is still available.
All dates set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings