California OAH special education order · August 17, 2026
Order Following Prehearing Conference Denying Motion to Amend and Granting Request for Continuance
OAH Case No. 2026070329 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's motion to amend because evidence had already been taken in the expedited phase. It granted a joint continuance so the parties could mediate the non-expedited claims.
This case went to decision
Student v. Lodi Unified School District: Lodi Unified correctly found an 11-year-old's after-school fight was not a manifestation of his disability; all relief denied. (2026)
Summary
Student's complaint against Lodi had expedited and non-expedited claims under one case number, and the expedited hearing was held August 4 to 6, 2026. Student then moved to amend the complaint. Lodi first filed a non-opposition, but at the prehearing conference it withdrew that non-opposition after it was explained that the amendment would change a complaint on which evidence had already been taken. The ALJ denied the amendment, so the non-expedited claims will proceed as stated in the original July 7, 2026 complaint, and granted the parties' joint request to continue so they could mediate first.
Why it matters
When a case is split into expedited and non-expedited phases, Student may not be able to amend the complaint once evidence has been taken in the expedited hearing, even if the district first agreed. Families should get all claims into the complaint before the expedited phase goes to hearing.
Key authority cited
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
- 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
- Tiffany Gilmartin, Administrative Law Judge
- Molly Watson, Attorney for Student
- Colleen Villarreal, Attorney for Lodi Unified School District
- Cristy Williams, Attorney for Lodi Unified School District
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.
LODI UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026070329
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE DENYING
MOTION TO AMEND AND GRANTING REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE
AUGUST 17, 2026
On August 17, 2026, Administrative Law Judge Tiffany Gilmartin, Office of Administrative Hearings held a telephonic prehearing conference. The Administrative Law Judge will be referred to as an ALJ. The prehearing conference will be referred to as a PHC. Attorney Molly Watson appeared on behalf of Student. Attorneys Colleen Villarreal and Cristy Williams appeared on behalf of Lodi Unified School District.
The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
MOTION TO AMEND
On July 7, 2026, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Lodi. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. Student’s matter contained expedited and non-expedited claims. The matter proceeded to expedited hearing on August 4, 5, and 6, 2026. At the time of this prehearing conference a decision in the expedited due process hearing had not been issued. The expedited and non-expedited claims are a single case, listed under the same case number, but are heard in two phases.
Lodi originally filed a non-opposition to Student’s motion to amend. When this PHC was convened and all parties were on the record and it was explained to both parties that Student’s motion to amend was seeking to amend a complaint where evidence had already been taken, Lodi moved to withdraw its non-opposition. Lodi in the alternative requested an opportunity to mediate the non-expedited claims prior to hearing.
Student’s motion to amend is denied. The matter will proceed on the non- expedited claims included in the July 7, 2026, request for due process hearing.
HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION
Both parties jointly moved to continue the prehearing conference and due process hearing based on a desire to mediate the non-expedited issues prior to hearing.
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. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).)
OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance or imposing conditions on the continuance; and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)
The request for continuance is granted for good cause. All previously scheduled dates are vacated. The case shall proceed as follows:
MEDIATION DATE is August 27, 2026, 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM.
MEDIATION will occur via telephone or videoconference.
PREHEARING CONFERENCE will be held on September 28, 2026, at 3:00 PM.
All other prehearing matters shall be addressed at the September 28, 2026, prehearing conference. All prehearing motions must be filed three business days before the PHC.
Due Process Hearing: October 13, 14, and 15, 2026.
The hearing will be conducted via telephone or videoconference and shall begin at 9:30 AM and end at 3:30 PM on all days, unless otherwise ordered. The hearing shall continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates, and shall subpoena witnesses if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will be available to testify. A witness will not be regarded as unavailable for purposes of showing “good cause” to continue the hearing if the witness is not properly notified of the hearing date or properly subpoenaed.
SETTLEMENT
The parties shall immediately inform OAH in writing if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing. If the parties reach a settlement within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880.
If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 5:00 PM the day before the hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.
If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.
FAILURE TO COMPLY
Failure to comply with this order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings