California OAH special education order · August 4, 2026
Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue and Setting Videoconference Mediation
OAH Case No. 2026070481, 2026070274 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH granted a joint request to consolidate Student's and Manteca's cases, finding both challenge the same December 2025 IEP and triennial assessments, and continued the non-expedited hearing for mediation.
This case went to decision
Manteca Unified School District v. Student: Manteca Unified may move a second grader with autism to the county's Believe Program for up to 45 school days. (2026)
Summary
After hearing the expedited part of Manteca's case, OAH took up the parties' joint request to consolidate Manteca's case with Student's case and to continue the hearing so they could mediate. OAH had earlier denied Student's consolidation request without prejudice until the expedited hearing was done. The ALJ granted consolidation because both cases turn on the adequacy of the December 10, 2025, IEP and related triennial assessments, and joining them saves resources and avoids inconsistent rulings. Student's case was made the primary case, so the 45-day decision timeline runs from Student's filing. The ALJ also found good cause to continue the hearing for mediation, which special education law favors. The schedule is mediation on August 24, a prehearing conference on August 31, and the hearing on September 9 and 10, 2026. The timeline for the expedited decision is not affected.
Why it matters
When a district files an expedited case, OAH may hold off on consolidating it with the parent's case until the expedited hearing is over. Once the cases are joined, the parent's case can become the primary case and set the decision timeline for the non-expedited claims.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11507.3, subd. (a)
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1048, subd. (a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a), (c)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(3)
- Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)
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
MANTECA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026070481
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026070274
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE AND
GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE AND SETTING
VIDEOCONFERENCE MEDIATION
AUGUST 4, 2026
On July 2, 2026, Manteca Unified School District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026070274, called Manteca’s Case, naming Student, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH. Manteca’s case raised both expedited and non-expedited claims.
On July 10, 2026, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing in OAH case number 2026070481, called Student’s Case, naming Manteca. Student’s complaint raised only non-expedited claims.
On July 20, 2026, OAH denied Student’s previous request to consolidate without prejudice. OAH indicated that the parties may request consolidation following the expedited due process hearing in Manteca’s Case.
OAH heard the expedited portion of Manteca’s case on July 28, 29, and 30, and August 4, 2026. On August 4, 2026, the Administrative Law Judge, called an ALJ, heard the parties’ joint request to consolidate the two matters, and to continue the consolidated matter to allow the parties to mediate the remaining issues. As explained below, those requests are granted.
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, the adequacy of the December 10, 2025, individualized education program and related triennial assessments. In addition, consolidation furthers the interests of judicial economy because it conserves both OAH’s and the parties’ limited resources, and prevents the possibility of inconsistent rulings. 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).)
The parties’ motion to continue the hearing demonstrated good cause for a continuance, based on their request to mediate Student’s complaint and the non- expedited portions of Manteca’s complaint. Special education law supports mediation.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(e).) Accordingly, the request for continuance is granted.
ORDER
1. The Joint Motion to Consolidate is granted.
2. Student’s Case is designated as the primary case. All non-expedited dates
previously set in Manteca Case, OAH case number 2026070274, are vacated.
3. The Joint Motion to Continue is granted.
4. Mediation in the above-captioned case shall be held on August 24, 2026,
from 9:00 AM to 4:30 PM, by videoconference or telephone.
5. The Non-Expedited Prehearing Conference in the consolidated cases shall
be held on August 31, 2026, at 3:00 PM by videoconference or telephone.
6. The Non-Expedited Due Process Hearing in the consolidated cases shall be
held on September 9 and 10, 2026, beginning at 9:30 AM on all days, continuing day to day as needed at the discretion of the ALJ. The Non- Expedited Due Process Hearing shall be held by videoconference or telephone.
7. The 45-day timeline for issuance of the Decision in the non-expedited
portions of the consolidated case shall be based on the date of the filing of the complaint in Student’s Case, OAH case number 2026070481.
8. Consolidation does not affect the timeline for issuance of the Decision for
the expedited portion of Manteca’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings