California OAH special education order · July 16, 2026

Order Denying Fremont's Request for Further Continuance of Due Process

OAH Case No. 2026060323 · ALJ Ted Mann

OAH denied Fremont's second request to continue the hearing. A district director's prepaid vacation was not good cause because other administrators could serve as the district's hearing representative.

Denied Scheduling and continuances

This case went to decision

Student v. Fremont Union High School District: Fremont Union High School District did not deny FAPE by ending a 22-year-old's services June 30 despite the IEP's July date. (2026)

Summary

Fremont asked for a second continuance because its planned hearing representative, Director Nancy Sullivan, would be on a preplanned, prepaid vacation on the July 21–22, 2026 hearing dates. Student opposed, arguing that other Fremont staff could represent the district and that more delay would harm Student. OAH found no good cause because Fremont did not show Sullivan was indispensable or that other administrators could not stand in. The likelihood that a decision would not issue before July 31 also did not justify another month-long delay, so the hearing dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

A district cannot delay a hearing just because its preferred representative is unavailable when other staff can fill the role. Parents who oppose repeat continuance requests can point to the legal requirement that due process hearings be resolved quickly.

Key authority cited

  • 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a)
  • Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (f)
  • Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
  • Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020
  • Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332

People named in the order

  • Nancy Sullivan, Director of Educational and Special Services, Fremont Union High School District

Topics

continuance good cause district representative unavailability hearing delay

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.

FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2026060323

ORDER DENYING FREMONT’S REQUEST FOR FURTHER

CONTINUANCE OF DUE PROCESS

JULY 16, 2026

On July 7, 2026, Fremont Union High School District filed a second request to continue the due process hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, OAH. On July 10, 2026, Student opposed the request.

Fremont contends the hearing should be continued because Fremont’s planned representative at hearing, Nancy Sullivan, the Director of Educational and Special Services for Fremont, is unavailable for the currently scheduled hearing dates of July 21, 2026 and July 22, 2026 due to a preplanned and prepaid vacation. Student contends the hearing should not be continued because other Fremont personnel can represent the district at hearing and that further delay will prejudice Student.

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 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, Fremont has not established good cause to continue the due process hearing. Although Fremont may prefer to have Director Sullivan represent the district at hearing, there is no showing that Sullivan is an indispensable representative and cannot be replaced by other administrative personnel as Fremont’s hearing representative.

Additionally, although a decision in the instant case is unlikely to be issued before July 31, 2026, that fact alone does not support a further month-long continuance that further delays resolution of this matter.

The request is denied. All due process hearing dates are confirmed and will proceed as calendared.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings