California OAH special education order · March 30, 2026
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate
OAH Case No. 2026031218, 2026020438 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH consolidated Student's and Walnut Valley's cases over Student's objection because both concern the same assessments and occupational therapy issues, making Walnut Valley's case primary and resetting the timeline.
This case went to decision
Student v. Walnut Valley Unified School District (consolidated): Walnut Valley Unified must fund four IEEs and translate an assessment report into Mandarin; most of the parent's claims denied. (2026)
Summary
Walnut Valley moved to consolidate its new due process case with Student's earlier case and to continue Student's hearing date. Student objected, arguing the continuance was a delay tactic. OAH granted consolidation because both cases involve the same parties, assessments, ending of occupational therapy services, witnesses, and exhibits. It made Walnut Valley's case the primary case, vacated all dates in Student's case, and ordered both sides to file new prehearing conference briefs. OAH called the continuance request moot because the consolidated case's dates are the original dates OAH set in Walnut Valley's case, and found those dates did not significantly prejudice Student.
Why it matters
When a district files its own case on the same issues after a parent files, OAH may consolidate the two and make the district's case primary. That can push back the parent's hearing date and restart the 45-day timeline from the district's filing date, even over the parent's objection.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code § 11507.3(a)
- Code Civ. Proc. § 1048(a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
- Ed. Code § 56502(f)
- Ed. Code § 56505(f)(3)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
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:
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026031218
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026020438
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
MARCH 30, 2026
On February 9, 2026, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026020438, Student’s case, naming Walnut Valley Unified School District.
On March 26, 2026, Walnut Valley filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026030218, Walnut Valley’s case, naming Student.
On March 30, 2026, Walnut Valley filed a Motion to Consolidate the cases and to continue the due process hearing date set in Student’s case, OAH case number 2026020438.
On March 30, 2026, Student filed an objection to consolidation on the ground that a continuance was a delay tactic which would prejudice Student.
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. The core of both cases is the appropriateness of assessments, termination of occupational therapy services, and denial of appropriate occupational therapy supports. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because both cases involve the same legal issues, witnesses and exhibits. Accordingly, consolidation is granted.
CONTINUANCE
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).)
Walnut Valley’s motion to continue the hearing demonstrates good cause for a continuance, based on the unavailability of school district employees recently requested on Student’s witnesses list, due to spring break on April 3, through 10, 2026. Further, on March 26, 2026, Student filed an objection to the Issue Statement contained in the Order Following Prehearing Conference, dated March 25, 2026, requesting significant changes to the issues as stated, which could be best addressed at a formal Prehearing Conference. Neither party previously requested a continuance. Further, Walnut Valley’s request for continuance is moot as continuance dates requested by Walnut Valley are the initial due process hearing dates assigned by OAH on Walnut Valley’s case and do not represent a significant prejudice to Student.
ORDER
1. Walnut Valley’s Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Walnut Valley’s Case is designated as the primary case. All dates
previously set in Student’s Case, OAH case number 2026020438, are vacated.
3. Both parties shall file new or amended Prehearing Conference Briefs
clearly and concisely stating their respective issues for discussion at the Prehearing Conference.
4. Walnut Valley’s request for continuance is moot.
5. 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 Walnut Valley’s Case, OAH case number 2026030218.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Judith Pasewark Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings