Consolidation
415 California OAH special education orders on consolidation, newest first, each with a plain-English summary. Search and filter these orders.
2026
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Sanger's IEE and FAPE case over Sanger's objection, finding no delay by Student and common questions about the same triennial reassessment and IEP offer.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a new case with an earlier case because evidence had already been taken and an expedited decision issued in the earlier case, and Lodi did not agree.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue and Setting Videoconference MediationOAH 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.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Order Amending Complaint, Consolidation of Complaints and Continuance of Due Process HearingOAH granted Desert Sands Unified's motions to amend its complaint and consolidate it with Student's case over Student's objection. Both cases ask whether the 2026 IEP offers a FAPE, and Student's hearing was pushed back about 15 days.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's request to consolidate with Manteca's case, without prejudice, because Manteca's case includes expedited issues that must be heard and decided before any consolidation.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Denying Request for Consolidation and Setting DatesOAH denied Beverly Hills' motion to consolidate Student's two complaints because OAH policy is not to consolidate cases filed by the same party, since each case has its own resolution-session timelines.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate as moot because the second complaint was found insufficient. It also denied Huntington Beach's motion to dismiss, holding that its settlement-agreement defense must be decided at hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Request to Maintain Dates in Student's CaseOAH consolidated Student's case with Pleasanton's earlier-filed case over Pleasanton's objection, finding good cause for the late motion and overlapping issues about the January 2026 triennial assessment and FAPE.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Denying Motion to Consolidate Student's Two Cases, and Granting Motion to Continue the HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to consolidate his own two cases as an improper attempt to amend. It granted District's continuance, partly because Student's counsel failed to clearly state the issues.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Student's Two CasesOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases, finding it an improper attempt to get around the earlier denial of Student's motion to amend and that consolidation would require a continuance without good cause.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, and Granting District's Motions to Consolidate and Continue Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and Earlimart's cases because both involve the appropriateness of Earlimart's evaluations, and continued the hearing to May 19-21, 2026, rather than the seven-week delay Earlimart requested.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH 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.
- Order Granting Motion To ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and San Benito's cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether San Benito timely funded requested independent educational evaluations or timely filed to defend its assessments.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Continue HearingOAH consolidated Student's and Etiwanda's cases because both concern the same April 1, 2025 IEP, and granted a short continuance over Student's opposition because Etiwanda had just hired new counsel.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to consolidate two of Student's own due process cases against Cupertino, because OAH does not consolidate cases filed by the same party; amendment is the proper tool.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's case with Pleasant View's later-filed case over Parent's objection, because both involve the same assessments, witnesses, and evidence. It then granted a short continuance so Parent could prepare.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Non-Expedited ClaimsOAH consolidated Cupertino Union's assessment case with Student's non-expedited claims over Student's objection, finding shared witnesses and evidence and no delay to Student's ongoing expedited hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Student's new FAPE case with Sanger's assessment case. Consolidation would bring little judicial economy and would further delay Sanger's request to assess without consent.
2025
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Colton's due process case with Student's earlier case over Student's opposition. Both cases turn on the legality of the same September 2, 2025 IEP, and Student's hearing dates were kept.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Santa Monica's case with Student's case over Student's opposition because both cases ask whether the district's assessments were legally compliant and whether Student is entitled to independent educational evaluations.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Stockton Unified's cases because both turn on whether the district may exit Student from special education, making the district's later-filed case control the timeline.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue and Second MediationOAH refused to consolidate twins' separate due process cases against Los Angeles Unified. Each child has individual IEP rights and different facts. OAH also denied a continuance and second mediation without prejudice.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Only as to Student's Case Number 2025090913OAH consolidated Del Mar Union's IEE case with Student's case because both turn on the same occupational therapy assessment, but refused to fold in Student's other pending complaints, which have differing timelines.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate because it was never actually served on Rosedale and was filed late, after the prehearing conference, with no good-cause declaration; hearing proceeds October 21, 2025.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate the cases because both turn on the same West Covina IEP offers. The District's FAPE claim will be heard with Student's non-expedited issues.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego's cases because both turn on the adequacy of the same March 11, 2025, multidisciplinary assessment, and denied San Diego's backup continuance motion as moot.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and ContinueOAH denied Palo Alto's last-minute motion to consolidate its new complaint with Student's case and continue the hearing, because consolidation would not serve judicial economy and the district gave no reason for its late filing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Natomas' due process cases because both challenge the same November 2024 IEP and its amendments, keeping Student's case as primary and its hearing dates.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Without PrejudiceOAH denied Natomas' motion to consolidate without prejudice because Student's pending motion to quash service of Natomas' email-only complaint left unclear whether Natomas' case is properly pending.
- Order Granting Milpitas Unified School District's Motions to Consolidate Cases and Continue Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and Milpitas's cases over the 2024-2025 IEPs and continued the hearing to August 2025 because Milpitas's attorney had to care for her injured father.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Glendale Unified's due process cases over the District's objection, because both concern the appropriateness of Student's 2024 initial assessment and share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Murrieta Valley's Motion to Consolidate and Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Murrieta Valley's cases over Student's objection because both turn on the district's RSIA assessment, and granted a two-week continuance because the assessor was unavailable.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference by Videoconference and Order Denying Kipp Bridge Academy's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Kipp Bridge Academy's motion to consolidate the parties' expedited cases because Student's look-back manifestation challenge and the school's forward-looking dangerousness claim are too different, and consolidation would delay Student's expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two of Student's own due process cases against San Marcos Unified because OAH does not consolidate cases filed by the same party; Student should move to amend instead.
- Order Resetting Applicable Timelines Based on the Amended Complaint; Order Denying Request to Consolidate Initial Complaint With Amended Complaint; Notice of No Action on Mill Valley Unified's Notice of Insufficiency Filed May 13, 2025OAH denied Student's request to treat the original and amended complaints as one, because an amended complaint replaces the earlier complaint. OAH also reset hearing timelines and took no action on the District's insufficiency notice.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuance of the Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego Unified's unopposed cases because they share witnesses, evidence, and background facts. It continued Student's hearing to the District's dates and ordered Student to file a clearer PHC statement.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated West Covina's case seeking a nonpublic school placement with Student's later-filed case, rejecting the district's unsupported claim of urgency because both cases turn on the same IEP offer.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's eligibility case with Mill Valley Unified's case defending its February 15, 2024 psychoeducational assessment, because both cases share common questions and the same evidence and witnesses.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate his case with his siblings' cases because each case concerns a different child's unique needs and would require different evidence and witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's FAPE case with Los Alamitos' case defending its IEP over the district's objection, because both involve the same FAPE questions, witnesses, and evidence.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate his case with his siblings' cases because each case concerns a different child's unique needs and would require different evidence and witnesses.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with three siblings' cases because each complaint concerns a different child's unique needs and would require different evidence and witnesses.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with three siblings' cases against Downey Unified because each child has a unique profile and needs, and IDEA cases for different children are not consolidated.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Order Granting Request for ConsolidationOAH consolidated Student's and Anaheim's cases because both turn on Student's need for services under the July 30, 2024 psychoeducational assessment, and Student withdrew his opposition.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's new case with Excel Academy Charter School's pending case over its objection, because both turn on the October 2024 IEP offer and the charter school showed no real prejudice.
2024
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference; Order Denying Motion to Consolidate as MootOAH denied Folsom-Cordova Unified's motion to consolidate as moot because it dismissed the District's own case at the prehearing conference, finding its issues outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate Student's Two Requests for Due Process HearingOAH denied Washington's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's two complaints because OAH does not combine two complaints from the same party. Student must instead move to amend the first complaint.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Student's new complaint with Long Beach's pending FAPE case because the hearing had already begun and Student's assessment and implementation claims raise different issues.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Saddleback Valley's assessment case with Student's FAPE case because both turn on whether the district's April 2024 assessments were legally appropriate. Student's case was made the primary case.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Student's case with Escondido's expedited and non-expedited case because OAH will not consolidate an expedited case with a non-expedited case.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate, Denying Motion to Continue, and Granting Request to MediateOAH consolidated Student's case with Capistrano Unified's earlier assessment case over the District's opposition, finding common issues, but denied Student's continuance because Parents waited three months to request records.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Santa Rosa Academy's due process cases because both concern the same amended IEP, involve the same witnesses and evidence, and Student did not object.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Scheduling Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH consolidated Student's case with San Diego's earlier FAPE case over the district's timeliness objection, finding overlapping issues risked conflicting rulings, and reset hearing to allow a resolution period.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated the cases because both turn on whether Student is still eligible for special education. It denied Student's request to hear them on September 17 because the District's resolution period had not run.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Redondo Beach's due process cases because both involve the same nonpublic school placement and FAPE questions, the same witnesses and evidence, and the motion was unopposed.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Monrovia's new due process case with Student's pending case over Student's timeliness objection. Monrovia plausibly explained its late filing as a response to Parents' new private school reimbursement demand.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over Charter's objection, calling the objection frivolous because both cases obviously overlap on Charter's vision and psychoeducational assessments and parental participation.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted the joint motion to consolidate Capistrano's and Student's cases because both turn on whether the October 27, 2023 IEP offered a FAPE. It also dismissed Student's unopposed Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Granting Motion to Consolidate, and Granting Request to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Rosedale's cases because both involve 2023-2024 assessments and overlapping witnesses and evidence, granted an unopposed one-week continuance, and set issues for a videoconference hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Clovis's motion to consolidate Student's two cases. Parents may file separate complaints, consolidation is not the way to expand issues, and three hearing days were already finished in the first case.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Pleasanton Unified's cases because both turn on the September 8, 2023 psychoeducational evaluation, and denied Student's motion to continue District's hearing as moot.
- Notice of No Action on Requests to Reset Timelines and Delay Ruling on Consolidation; and Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Irvine's motion to consolidate its assessment case with Student's earlier case. The issues overlapped, but Parent had no lawyer in the District's case, and consolidation would force on her legal fees she had not chosen.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Capistrano's case because the motion was filed late without a good-cause declaration, the cases share no common issue, and Capistrano's case is ready for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego Unified's cases over the district's objection, finding the speech and language independent evaluation question overlapped with the district's multi-disciplinary assessment case despite its dismissal of Issue 2.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for Continuance and Leave to File a Motion for ReconsiderationOAH denied Riverside's motion to add Student's new third case to two already consolidated cases, finding it would not serve judicial economy, and granted a brief continuance so Riverside could seek reconsideration.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Downey's case because Student's case raises expedited issues, which run on a mandatory 20-school-day timeline and cannot be combined with a non-expedited case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Escondido Union's due process cases because they share common issues, witnesses, and evidence. Student's case became the primary case, and the district did not oppose.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Consolidate, Order Dismissing Madera County Superintendent of Schools as a PartyOAH consolidated Student's and Madera Unified's cases because both turn on whether the district's January 2022 psychoeducational evaluation was appropriate, and dismissed the county superintendent at Student's request.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's opposed motion to consolidate with the District's case because both cases ask whether the District's August 2023 psychoeducational evaluation was appropriate and share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Sequoia's unopposed motion to consolidate its refiled case with Student's case. Both cases turn on the same October 2021 psychoeducational assessment and December 2023 IEP, with the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Consolidating Cases and Continuing Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH consolidated Ukiah's and Student's due process cases because both involve common questions about Student's FAPE. It also continued the hearing so Student could prepare and because Ukiah's counsel was unavailable.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Order Granting Snowline Joint Unified School District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Snowline's unopposed motion to consolidate its case with Student's, finding common questions of law and fact and shared witnesses, and set a videoconference hearing starting January 23, 2024.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's request to hear all 27 issues on an expedited basis, ruling that consolidation applies to separate cases, not issues within one complaint, and cannot change statutory hearing timelines.
2023
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's child-find case with Campbell Union's case seeking to assess without consent because they share issues and evidence, but denied a continuance because the proposed start date was unavailable.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Charter School's due process cases because both involve the appropriateness of Student's program for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years. Student's case was made the primary case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Long Beach Unified's cases over Student's objection, finding both turn on whether the June 8, 2023 IEP offered a FAPE, despite Student's private placement and mootness argument.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate Student's Two Requests for Due Process HearingOAH denied Washington Unified's motion to consolidate Student's two due process cases because the District did not show the cases shared the same witnesses and evidence, and Student opposed.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue to Dates Previously Requested by the PartiesOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego's cases because both involve the same assessments, and kept the previously agreed mediation and hearing dates over Student's objection, finding no good reason to change them.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Rosedale's case seeking to implement the April 28, 2023 IEP without consent with Student's procedural-violation case, finding common issues and a risk of conflicting rulings despite Student's opposition.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Temecula Valley's due process cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether the November 3, 2022 IEP and its amendments offered Student a FAPE.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Capistrano Unified's motion to consolidate Student's two complaints, finding it simpler for Parent to amend the first complaint to add the new IEP claim and dismiss the second case.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Denying Motion to Consolidate and Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Capistrano Unified's motion to consolidate Student's two complaints, finding it faster for Parent to amend the first complaint and dismiss the second. OAH granted the unopposed continuance and reset hearing dates.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denial of Order Denying Motion for ConsolidationOAH denied Manhattan Beach Unified's last-minute motion to consolidate its new assessment case with Student's case. The District showed no good cause for the late filing, and the cases raised different issues.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Bonita Unified's and Student's cases over the October 2022 evaluations and Student's request for independent evaluations, but denied the joint continuance because the parties gave no reason for it.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a new complaint with Long Beach's reopened assessment case because Student's new issues went beyond the limited reopening and the hearing had already begun.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Healdsburg's first case, finding both turn on whether the August 10, 2022 psychoeducational assessment was legally compliant, and excused Student's late filing because Healdsburg was not prejudiced.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's eligibility case with Temecula's assessment case but refused to delay the hearing, keeping Student's earlier hearing dates because naming Student's case primary needs no new resolution period.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Riverside's assessment-defense case with Student's earlier case over Student's objection, finding common questions about independent evaluations, and made Riverside's later-filed case control the hearing timeline.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for Consolidation and ContinuanceOAH consolidated Student's and Mt. Diablo's cases over the district's objection because both concern Student's feeding plan and overlapping witnesses and exhibits, and granted a joint continuance.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motions to Consolidate and to Continue Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and Granite Mountain's cases because both turn on the same IEP meetings, assessments, and FAPE offers in 2021-2022, and it granted an unopposed continuance to March 2023.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Dinuba's due process cases over Dinuba's opposition because both turn on whether Student's program in 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 was appropriate, and will share witnesses.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Corona-Norco's case over Corona-Norco's objection. Both cases turn on Student's behavior history and the April 2022 functional behavior assessment, with overlapping witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Consolidation and Continuance of Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's and Travis Unified's cases. Both involve assessment, independent educational evaluation, and placement issues and will likely use the same witnesses and evidence.
2022
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Sacramento City Unified's unopposed motion to consolidate its case with Student's case because the expedited issues in the two cases are distinct and need different legal analysis.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Corona-Norco's cases, which both turn on the May 27, 2022 IEP, but denied the District's request to push the hearing to the later dates set in its own case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Irvine's earlier-filed case over Irvine's objection, because both turn on whether the March 23, 2022 IEP offered a FAPE and will share evidence and witnesses.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Chino Valley's assessment case with Student's FAPE case, because the issues differ and consolidation would delay the District's right to a prompt ruling on assessment.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Carmel Unified's due process cases. Both cases raise common questions about whether Student received a FAPE in spring 2022 and share witnesses and exhibits, and the district did not oppose.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Los Angeles Unified's later-filed assessment case because both involve the May 2022 psychoeducational assessment and Student did not oppose.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for ConsolidationOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego's cases over Student's oral objection, because both challenge the same IEP offers, and set hearing on the District's later dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Beverly Hills's assessment case with Student's broader FAPE case over the district's objection, because both turn on the appropriateness of the same transition and occupational therapy evaluations.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Riverside's due process cases over Student's opposition because both turn on the appropriateness of Riverside's assessments and share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases against Alameda, finding it an end-run around an earlier order that dismissed the same independent evaluation reimbursement issue and denied leave to amend.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and ContinueOAH denied a joint motion to consolidate and continue two Student cases because one concerns a 2019 assessment and the other concerns later placement and services, so they share no common question.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student Case a Primary CaseOAH consolidated Los Angeles' case defending its March 2022 IEP with Student's case challenging IEPs since March 2020, because both cases involve the same parties, issues, witnesses, and documents.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two due process cases against Ventura USD because they shared no common question of law or fact and consolidation would not save time.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Etiwanda School District's unopposed motion to consolidate. Both cases ask whether the same IEP offered Student a FAPE and will share evidence and witnesses. Student's case was made the primary case.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion for ConsolidationOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a newly filed complaint with Ventura's case because the two cases involve different IEPs and consolidation would further delay Ventura's already-continued hearing.
- Order Denying Rocklin Unified School District's Motion to BifurcateOAH denied Rocklin's motion to split Student's claims against it into a separate case. Evidence about Student's disability and history overlaps for both districts, and Elk Grove may call Rocklin staff as witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Whittier's due process cases because both concern the timeliness and appropriateness of Whittier's November 2020 multidisciplinary assessment report and will share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's and Etiwanda's cases because both concern whether the December 8, 2021 IEP offered a FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate, Advancing Hearing Date of Student's Issue, and Ordering Amended Prehearing Conference StatementsOAH consolidated Student's manifestation-determination case with Carpinteria's expedited interim-placement case over the District's objection, finding them directly connected, and moved Student's hearing up to February 1, 2022.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Etiwanda's triennial assessment case because Student's 15 FAPE and assessment claims through April 2021 shared no common question of law or fact with it.
2021
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Elk Grove's motion to consolidate its new case about a December 2021 IEP with Student's earlier case. Student's claims predate that IEP, the motion was untimely, and Student's case was ready for hearing.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Murrieta Valley's assessment case because the motion was untimely without good cause and the cases share no common question of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Pleasanton's cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether the April 29, 2021 IEP offered a FAPE and will involve the same witnesses and documents.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Riverside's cases and made Riverside's later-filed case primary, because both turn on whether Riverside's assessments met legal standards, and Student's dates left no time for evidence exchange.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Saddleback Valley's due process cases because both turn on whether the District correctly found Student ineligible at an October 2021 IEP meeting, and the District did not oppose.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Los Angeles's assessment-defense case with Student's earlier case over Student's opposition, because both turn on the same independent educational evaluation request and the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate as MootOAH denied Riverside's motion to consolidate as moot because Student dismissed Student's own due process case, leaving only Riverside's case to proceed as scheduled.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request to Reset Hearing DatesOAH consolidated Student's and Los Angeles Unified's cases over the District's objection because both turn on the spring 2021 assessments, but refused to move the hearing to Student's later dates for lack of good cause.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to add a new case to an already consolidated case because the claims share no common question of law or fact and the time periods barely overlap.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Irvine's due process cases because both turn on whether Irvine's psychoeducational/multidisciplinary assessment of Student was appropriate. Student did not oppose.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Elk Grove's motion to consolidate over Student's objection, finding overlapping time periods, facts, witnesses, and evidence despite no common issue, and made District's later-filed case primary.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Mount Diablo's motion to consolidate its assessment-without-consent case with Student's earlier case because the two cases share no common question of law or fact.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Rialto's assessment-without-consent case with earlier cases because there was no common question of law or fact and the motion came on the first hearing day.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted San Jose's motion to consolidate its new complaint with Student's earlier case over Student's objection, because both cases share the same parties, witnesses, and common questions about Student's FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating District Case as PrimaryOAH consolidated Bonita's case with Student's earlier case over Student's objection, finding both challenge the same 2020 IEP and that the one-week hearing delay was not prejudicial.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Enterprise Elementary's unopposed due process cases because both challenge the February 2020 FAPE offer and the district's medical assessment request, and would use the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request to Reset Timelines and Continue the HearingOAH consolidated Student's and Los Alamitos's cases because both challenge the same psychoeducational assessment, but denied the district's request to reset timelines because it showed no good cause for another continuance.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Primary CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Guadalupe Union's due process cases because both concern whether the District appropriately conducted its fall 2020 multidisciplinary assessment. Student's case was made primary.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request for Continuance as MootOAH consolidated Student's case with San Diego Unified's later-filed case over Student's opposition, because both turn on whether the October 7, 2020 IEP offered a FAPE, and made the District's case primary.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Student's two cases against Glendale over the district's objection because both involve the same IEPs and evidence, and denied Student's continuance request as moot.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's case with a sibling's separate case against Rocklin, finding different petitioners and different IEPs, so consolidation would not serve judicial economy.
2020
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Without Prejudice Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Etiwanda's cases over Student's objection because both ask whether the August 4, 2020 IEP offered a FAPE, but denied Etiwanda's continuance for lack of good cause.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Etiwanda's cases over Student's opposition. Both cases concern the same July 2020 IEP and assessment issues. OAH denied Etiwanda's continuance because its counsel showed only possible, not actual, conflicts.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Excel Academy's earlier case over the charter school's objection. Both cases challenge the same IEP and assessment plan, and the overlap and judicial economy outweighed a one-month delay.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Determining Motion to Bifurcate as MootOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Oakland's assessment case because the cases involve different legal issues, time periods, and evidence, and found Student's bifurcation motion moot.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Rocklin's motion to consolidate over Student's objection because both cases turn on whether the September 4, 2020 IEP offered a FAPE, and made the District's later-filed case primary.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate and vacate hearing dates, calling it a frivolous end run around the ALJ's earlier denial of leave to add a new district and new IEP claims.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Student's new case with Anaheim Elementary's case as untimely, because it was filed less than one business day before the district's hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Videoconference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Request for ContinuanceOAH consolidated Student's and Chino Valley's cases because both turn on whether the district's placement offer was appropriate. It also granted a continuance so the district could finish in-person assessments, with Parent's agreement.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to DismissOAH consolidated the charter school's and Student's cases because they share the same placement issue. It denied Student's motion to dismiss the charter's case because that motion sought a ruling on the merits.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Upland's motion to fold Student's newly filed case into a nearly finished hearing, because Upland cited no authority for consolidating into a hearing already underway.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over San Jose's objection, finding both cases turn on the legal sufficiency of the district's functional behavior assessment and share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for ConsolidationOAH consolidated Student's case with Panama-Buena's earlier-filed case over the district's objection because both involve the February 2020 functional behavior assessment and consolidation saves time and avoids inconsistent rulings.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate without prejudice. Student filed the second case shortly before San Jose's set hearing and would not keep the existing dates, so the filing looked like a last-minute bid to continue.
- Order Denying Motion to Bifurcate, Granting Motion to UnconsolidateOAH separated Student's cases against Folsom Cordova and The Met because they were consolidated without notice and share no common facts or law, but refused a separate jurisdiction hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Norris School District's cases because both ask whether the January 22, 2020 IEP offered Student a FAPE and will use the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Request to ConsolidateOAH denied Chino Valley's opposed motion to consolidate its case defending an April 2020 IEP with Student's case, finding the cases shared no common issues of fact or law and covered different time frames.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Newport-Mesa's case because both turn on the validity of Student's May 2019 triennial assessment, which saves time and avoids inconsistent rulings.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Student's second case with the existing consolidated case because Student consented and both cases ask whether the October 31, 2016 IEP offered a FAPE; Upland's continuance request was moot.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Primary CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Fremont's cases over Student's objection because both turn on Student's occupational therapy needs and share parties, witnesses, and documents.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate because Los Altos' single IEE issue shared no common question with Student's eight claims, and the motion came days before Los Altos' hearing.
- Order Denying Glendale's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Glendale's motion to add Student's third case to the consolidated cases because it raised a separate IEP-meeting issue, and the IDEA lets parents file separate complaints and have separate hearings.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Glendale's case defending its assessments and IEPs with Student's case challenging them, finding common issues and rejecting Glendale's objection that Student's separate timely-IEP case would then be heard first.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted San Diego Unified's unopposed motion to consolidate its due process case with Student's because both cases concern the appropriateness of assessments, making Student's case primary.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and to Continue and Designating District's Case PrimaryOAH consolidated Moraga's assessment-defense case with Student's case over Moraga's objection because both turn on the same December 2018 and September 2019 assessments, and moved the hearing to Student's schedule.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Bakersfield City's unopposed motion to consolidate its expedited case with Student's case. The legal questions differed, so joining them would not save time or prevent inconsistent rulings.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate; Denying Student's Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Murrieta Valley's IEE-denial case with Student's IEE case over the District's objection, finding common questions about assessments and IEE funding, overlapping behavior witnesses, and judicial economy.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as PrimaryOAH granted Student's opposed motion to consolidate with San Jose's earlier-filed case and made Student's case primary, because both cases turn on the same IEP offer, assessments, parties, and witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's two cases over Student's objection because they share parties and likely witnesses. It denied Santa Clara's continuance request because mid-winter break and witness unavailability were not good cause.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Whittier's due process cases because both turn on whether Whittier's 2019 reassessments of Student were appropriate and would need the same witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Bakersfield's unopposed motion to consolidate the non-expedited issues in both cases because they share questions about the November 2019 assessments; Student's expedited disciplinary issue proceeds separately.
2019
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over Alta Loma's objection because both cases ask whether the same May 17 and August 6, 2019 IEP offered Student a FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Oakland's due process cases because both ask whether Oakland offered a FAPE from August 2018 on, sharing witnesses and evidence; Oakland's later-filed case became primary.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Roseville's due process cases over Student's laches objection, because both involve common questions about the May 23, 2019 offer and IEE funding under the SELPA cost policy.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Manhattan Beach's assessment and IEP case with Student's later-filed case over objections from Father and the District, finding common issues, witnesses, and a risk of conflicting rulings.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Newport-Mesa's motion to consolidate Student's two cases because they raise separate issues and federal law entitles Parent to separate hearings on separately filed complaints.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Request to Consolidate, Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss, and Rescheduling Time of Prehearing ConferenceOAH consolidated Student's and Pleasant Valley's cases because both concern the 2019-2020 IEP, and denied Parent's request to dismiss the district's case because OAH has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Primary CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Mount Diablo's cases because both concern the 2018 psychoeducational and academic assessments, and kept Student's earlier hearing dates and timelines rather than the District's.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated ABC Unified's later-filed case with Student's case over Student's objection, but denied the District's untimely, unsupported request to continue, keeping the October 2019 hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Garden Grove's and Student's due process cases over Student's objection and granted a two-week continuance because the district's counsel had earlier-filed, higher-priority hearings.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH consolidated Long Beach's and Student's cases over the district's objection, finding common questions about assessments and exit from special education, and continued the hearing about six weeks.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Conejo Valley Unified's case with Student's case over Student's opposition, because both turn on the same functional behavior assessment and March 5, 2019 IEP, and separate hearings risked inconsistent rulings.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Lompoc Unified's case with Student's first case because they share behavior and bullying issues. It refused to add Student's second case because federal law lets Student choose separate hearings.
- Order Partially Granting Lompoc's Motion to Consolidate and Consolidating OAH Case Number 2019041183 and OAH Case Number 2019060788OAH consolidated Student's first case with Lompoc Unified's assessment case because they share issues and witnesses. It refused to merge Student's second case, since Student chose separate hearings under federal law.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's IEE reimbursement case with Poway Unified's case defending its assessments over Student's opposition, finding common questions and a risk of inconsistent rulings on IEE funding.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Consolidating CasesOAH consolidated Student's case with San Mateo's case over the District's opposition, because both challenge the same August 2018 IEP and share witnesses, and the District showed no real prejudice.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated McCabe Union's assessment case with Student's case because both turn on the same assessment, but refused to continue the hearing dates, so Student's expedited and non-expedited schedule stays in place.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to add a new case to already-consolidated cases. The motion was late, lacked a good-cause declaration, shared no common issues, and would delay the hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Anaheim Union's case with Student's re-filed case over Student's objection, because both challenge the same December 2018 IEP and assessments and will use the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Denying Motion to Consolidate and for ContinuanceOAH denied Lammersville's motion to consolidate and continue, filed about half an hour before the prehearing conference, because the district gave no excuse for filing late and no good cause for delay.
- Order Denying Request to Dismiss; Granting Motion to Consolidate; and Designating Student's Case as Lead CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Anaheim's cases over Student's objection. It denied her request to dismiss Anaheim's case because OAH has jurisdiction and does not decide the merits before a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Los Angeles' last-minute motion to consolidate its new assessment case with Student's case, finding it untimely, unjustified, and prejudicial to Student less than a week before hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Gilroy's cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether Gilroy's transitional kindergarten special day class offer is a FAPE in the least restrictive environment.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Granting Motion to Consolidate; Granting Joint Motion to Continue Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing; and Staying Ruling on Motion in LimineOAH consolidated Student's IEP challenge with Newport-Mesa Unified's case seeking to assess Student, finding common questions about updated assessments, present levels, and goals, and continued the hearing by joint request.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a new case with East Side's exit-from-special-education case because it was untimely and the only real overlap, the triennial assessments, would be decided in the existing hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's new case with Middletown's earlier case over the District's objection, finding common issues about the September IEP offers and IEE requests outweighed the inconvenience of delaying Middletown's hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Redondo Beach's due process cases because both turn on whether the district's fall 2018 psychoeducational assessment was legally compliant, and Student did not oppose.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate Without PrejudiceOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate without prejudice because San Mateo amended its complaint after the motion was filed, so the motion no longer addressed the operative complaint.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Larkspur-Corte Madera's cases over Student's opposition because both turn on whether the initial assessment was appropriate, and continued the hearing because District counsel had a conflicting hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate Student's and Salinas's due process cases because both involve the common issue of whether a Salinas assessment was sufficient.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and the districts' cases because both turn on whether the February 1, 2019 residential placement offer is a FAPE. It vacated Student's March hearing dates despite Student's objection to delay.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Upland's cases because both turn on Upland's right to assess under its March 2018 plan. It moved Student's hearing to dates already set in Upland's case, rejecting any further delay.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated El Segundo's assessment case with Student's case over the District's objection. Student's claim that the District failed to assess in all suspected areas in 2016 is a defense to the District's request to assess now.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate, Designating Student's Case as Lead Case, and Denying Student's Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Student's and Vista's due process cases over Vista's objection, making Student's case the lead case. Both cases share common questions about Student's IEP, parties, witnesses, and documents.
2018
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Culver City's assessment case because Student's denial-of-FAPE claims and the District's request to conduct an ERICS assessment share no common question of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Newark's and Student's due process cases over Newark's objection because both turn on whether the March 27, 2018 IEP offered Student a FAPE.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a new complaint with Orinda's partly heard case, finding it a bid to relitigate two completed hearing days that would waste resources and delay resolution.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Setting MediationOAH consolidated Student's case with District's triennial assessment case over District's partial objection, finding common issues and only minimal delay because the hearings were set a week apart.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with Sky Mountain's mediation-only request because a mediation-only filing raises no hearing issues to consolidate, and the request had been withdrawn anyway.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Los Angeles's due process cases because both involve the same fall 2017 psycho-educational, assistive technology, and occupational therapy assessments, with common witnesses and evidence.
- Prehearing Conference Order Granting District's Motion to Consolidate and Granting District's Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Corona-Norco's cases over Student's objection because both turn on the District's evaluations and Student's request for publicly funded IEEs, then continued the hearing for mediation.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted San Marcos' unopposed motion to consolidate its case with Student's earlier case because both involve overlapping time periods, common witnesses, and common documents. It made San Marcos' case the primary case.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to AdvanceOAH consolidated Student's and Roseville's cases because both turn on whether Roseville failed to timely assess Student. It denied Roseville's request to advance its case to Student's earlier hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Beverly Hills's opposed motion to consolidate because both cases challenge the same February 1, 2018 IEP, and the district sought no continuance, so Student's hearing would not be delayed.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Garden Grove's due process cases because both concern the adequacy of the district's 2018 triennial assessment and IEP. It also granted Student's continuance to agreed hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend; Maintaining Consolidation; Designating District Case as Lead Case; and Confirming Prehearing Conference and Hearing DatesOAH let Oakland add a claim defending its assessments against Parent's independent evaluation request, kept the cases consolidated under Oakland's case, and kept the October 2018 hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Temecula's due process cases because both turn on the appropriateness of Student's November 2017 assessments, and Student did not object; Student's hearing dates and timeline were kept.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to amend and Irvine's unopposed motion to consolidate, because both cases challenge the same June 2018 IEP offer and would share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Poway's due process cases and continued Student's hearing because both cases ask whether the September 6, 2017 IEP, as amended, offered a FAPE.
- Order Granting Charter's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Charter's case with Student's case because both challenge Charter's assessments and its February 9, 2018 IEP offer, involve the same parties and witnesses, and one hearing avoids conflicting decisions.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Denying Student's Motion to Consolidate and Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Student's motion to join his 13-issue case with District's single-issue case to assess without consent, finding no intertwined issues or risk of inconsistent rulings, and denied a further continuance.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's opposed motion to consolidate because both cases involve the same 2018 reading assessment and 2017-2018 school year, with common witnesses and documents.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on the February 28, 2018 IEP, involve the same parties and likely the same witnesses, and Student did not oppose.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Poway Unified's last-minute motion to consolidate its assessment case with Student's case because Student's consultation-services claims and District's assessment claims were too different to save time.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with District's speech and language assessment case over District's objection, because both cases share parties, facts, witnesses, and documents.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's assessment-consent case with Student's FAPE case because they cover similar time periods, witnesses, and evidence, and consolidation would not delay Student's already continued hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue Prehearing Conference and Hearing DatesOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Student's objection and continued the hearing about three weeks, finding the cases share a common question about the October 16, 2017 IEP offer and a short delay was not unduly prejudicial.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and to Change VenueOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on whether District offered a FAPE in 2017-2018. Over District's objection, OAH moved the hearing to San Diego and denied both sides' continuance requests.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Continue Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH consolidated Acalanes' FAPE-implementation case with Student's earlier complaint and continued the hearing about a month, finding overlapping issues, timeframes, witnesses and evidence despite Student's objections.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate Non-Expedited Issues, and Designating Student's Case as LeadOAH consolidated Student's case with Brentwood's non-expedited issue because both challenge the 2017-2018 placement offer, but refused to merge Student's case into the expedited hearing track.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's and District's cases because both turn on the appropriateness of the same November 20, 2017 assessments and use the same witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's and Student's due process cases over District's refusal to pay for an independent educational evaluation, finding common questions and shared witnesses, with District not opposing.
2017
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Setting Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH granted District's motion to consolidate its case with Student's case over Student's opposition, because both turn on whether District's amended IEP offer was a FAPE and share witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing Telephonic Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Student's objection because the same physical therapist, orthopedic teacher, and nurse testimony on Student's abilities bore on both cases.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated District's case with Student's earlier case over Student's objection, finding a common question about assessment in all areas of suspected disability, but denied District's unsupported request to continue the hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with the District and Charter's case over Charter's opposition, finding both turn on whether the January 20, 2017 IEP offered FAPE and that a joint hearing avoids duplicate evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Student's Case With District's CasesOAH consolidated Student's case with District's two cases over District's objection, finding common questions about the 2016-2017 IEPs, behavior plans, and assessments, and finding that judicial economy outweighed a brief delay.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Lead CaseOAH consolidated Student's and San Diego's due process cases, which both concern the June 2017 IEP, and made Student's case the lead case controlling all timelines.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Irvine Unified's motion to consolidate its new FAPE case with Student's earlier case because the cases cover different school years and issues, and consolidation would delay Student's hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Student's objection, finding common FAPE issues and overlapping witnesses even though the cases covered different school years.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with District's assessment case because the filing came days before hearing, would delay District's timely hearing, and would reward the advocate's dilatory tactics.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Order Granting Motion to Continue Prehearing ConferenceOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on whether the April 2017 IEP offered a FAPE, and continued the prehearing conference to October 2, 2017 by stipulation.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases and continued the hearing. The cases share common questions, witnesses, and evidence, and Student did not object.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's motions to consolidate and to continue. The cases shared only one overlapping issue, and needing more time for an independent evaluation is not good cause for a continuance.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Parent's last-minute motion to consolidate a new complaint with the District's case because it was untimely, lacked a required declaration, and would prejudice the District one day before hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because they share common issues about District's assessments and FAPE offers, and moved the hearing to the dates set on Student's amended complaint.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate Student's case with Snowline's case over Antelope Valley's opposition, because both cases ask whether Snowline's spring 2017 assessments were appropriate.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Granting Motion for ConsolidationOAH granted District's oral motion to consolidate its case with Student's case because both turn on whether District's 2017-2018 IEP offer was appropriate, and Student did not object.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's case with Poway's case over the district's objection because both turn on Student's 2017-2018 placement and share most witnesses and evidence. It denied the continuance as moot.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Lodi Unified's due process cases because they involve the same parties, overlapping assessment and independent evaluation issues, and the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Consolidating CasesOAH consolidated Templeton's newest due process case with two already-consolidated cases after Student joined the District's motion, keeping Student's case as primary and the September 19, 2017 hearing date.
- Order Granting Kern's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Kern's and Student's due process cases over Student's and Panama's objections because both involved the 2016-2017 offers, behavior assessment, and the same witnesses, with only a brief hearing delay.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's IEE and assessment-without-consent case with Student's assessment case. Both involve common questions of law and fact and the same witnesses, and Student's hearing dates will control.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Fountain Valley's earlier-filed case over the District's objection, because both turn on whether the February 2017 IEP offer was a FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Lead CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Templeton's due process cases, with Student's case as lead, because both turn on whether the October 2016 IEP offered a FAPE.
- Order Granting Upland Unified School District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether Student still qualifies for special education, but kept the hearing dates and decision timeline from Student's earlier case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted the parties' joint request to consolidate Student's and Liberty Union's cases. Both cases turn on whether the district's assessments were adequate or whether Student is entitled to independent evaluations.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over District's oral objection, finding the cases share parties and issues and that a roughly one-month hearing delay would not prejudice District.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Designating Student's Case as Lead CaseOAH consolidated Oakland's assessment and IEP case with Student's FAPE case over Student's opposition, finding common questions of law and fact and shared witnesses, and made Student's case the lead case.
- Order Following PHC and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Benicia's unopposed motion to consolidate the cases. Both cases turn on whether Student was denied FAPE or should have graduated in 2015, so they share witnesses, exhibits, and issues.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Denying District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied District's motion to consolidate its new triennial-assessment case with Student's older FAPE case because the cases share no common questions and consolidation would further delay Student's hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated District's and Student's cases over District's objection because both involve the same parties and the appropriateness of District's December 2015 social-emotional assessment, and denied Student's continuance as moot.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate; Granting Motion to Bifurcate; and Denying Motion to Continue Without PrejudiceOAH denied a joint motion to consolidate Student's and sibling's cases because, apart from residency, they involve distinct issues, but granted bifurcation so the threshold residency question is heard first.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to Continue Due Process HearingOAH denied District's request to consolidate a new case and continue the hearing, finding District was using a new filing to get around the federal deadline for amending its complaint.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because both ask whether the April 11 and May 17, 2016 IEPs offered Student a FAPE, and District did not oppose.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference of April 24, 2017; Granting Joint Motion to Consolidate; Granting Motion to ContinueOAH granted the parties' joint mid-hearing motion to consolidate Student's two cases. The issues and witnesses overlapped, and Capistrano was the responsible local educational agency, including for its chartered school.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted a joint motion to consolidate Student's and District's cases because both turn on how severe Student's behavior is and whether it required different services or reassessment.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's two cases over Student's opposition because both alleged LAUSD failed its child find and bullying-prevention duties during the same school year, involving the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Consolidate and ContinueOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate and continue because Student waited until less than three days before Castro Valley's assessment hearing to file it and would not be prejudiced by separate hearings.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to consolidate with Tracy's assessment case because that hearing could already resolve the IEE timeliness question and consolidating would delay it again; continuance also denied.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two due process cases because they cover different school years and different parties, and the earlier case had already been continued twice.
- Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases over Student's objection because both turn on whether District's fall 2016 occupational therapy assessment was appropriate.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied District's motion to consolidate its case with Student's earlier cases because they concern different IEPs from different time periods and share no common question of law or fact.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate his discipline and FAPE case with District's assessment and IEP case because the issues, time periods, and evidence differ and expedited issues must be heard separately.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion for Consolidation and ContinuanceOAH granted Parent's motion, over District's objection, to consolidate and continue the cases because both turned on whether District appropriately assessed Student and would use the same witnesses and evidence.
2016
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Order Consolidating Due Process Matters, and ContinuanceOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on the validity of District's assessments. It granted Student's opposed continuance because Student's counsel was ordered into another hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate; Granting Motion to Continue and Setting Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated District's and Student's cases over Student's objection because both raise whether District offered a FAPE in 2015-2016, and continued the hearing for District's attorney's unavailability.
- Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's independent evaluation cases and made District's later-filed case primary, finding the one-week hearing delay caused no specific prejudice to Student.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's assessment case with Student's FAPE case over District's objection, finding that the same IEP team witnesses would testify in both, so one hearing serves judicial economy.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request to Keep Dates in Student's CaseOAH consolidated Student's and Districts' cases over the May 19, 2016 IEP. It refused Student's request to keep Student's earlier hearing dates because Student did not show a 12-day delay would cause significant harm.
- Order Granting Joint Motion to Consolidate and Continue Mediation, Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated District's and Student's cases on their joint motion because both turn on whether District offered Student a FAPE for the same school year, and moved the combined case to Student's case dates.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to Continue and Setting Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing DatesOAH consolidated District's due process case with Student's over Student's objection because both turn on whether the September 22, 2015 IEP offered a FAPE, and continued Student's hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Resetting Hearing DatesOAH consolidated District's case with Student's earlier case because both challenge District's 2015-2016 placement and services offer and share witnesses and evidence; hearing follows Student's continued schedule.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's second complaint on extended school year services with the already-consolidated cases, finding common issues about Districts' FAPE offers and no opposition from Districts.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Capistrano's case because both turn on whether the district's assessment was appropriate, involve the same parties and time frame, and share witnesses and documents.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's case defending its speech and language assessment with Student's broader case, because both raise common questions about the same assessment and will use the same witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied District's late motion to consolidate its new case with Student's earlier case because consolidation would further delay Student's already-continued hearing and would not serve judicial economy.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with District's case seeking an ERICS counseling assessment without Parents' consent, because both turn on the same evaluations and history of Student's anxiety.
- Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Request to Consolidate; and Notice of Receipt of Ex Parte CommunicationOAH denied Fairfield-Suisun's motions to amend and consolidate. The amendment only dropped an issue, and consolidation was moot because Student's separate complaint was found insufficient and named a different agency.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's motion to consolidate over Student's opposition because both cases involve the same parties, overlapping witnesses, and common questions about Student's 2015-2016 placement.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate because District's request to assess over parental objection does not share issues with Student's case about Student's behavioral needs.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference of May 16, 2016; Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated the Districts' and Student's due process cases because both challenge the appropriateness of the Districts' placement offers, share common facts, law and witnesses, and Student did not object.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases against Redlands Unified. The cases shared little common law or fact, and consolidation would only have delayed a hearing OAH had repeatedly refused to continue.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's case with two District cases over District's objection. The cases share common questions about the 2015 IEP offers and District's psychoeducational assessment, and they share witnesses.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request to Consolidate Hearing DatesOAH denied District's motion to consolidate its exit-from-special-education case with Student's earlier FAPE case, finding no common questions of law or fact because the cases involve different IEPs and years.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Setting Dates for Mediation, Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over District's objection because both ask whether District's assessments were adequate and will rely on largely the same witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's two due process cases over Student's objection because both raise common questions about District's timely IEP meetings and both cover the 2014-2015 school year.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate her new independent evaluation case with District's placement case. The cases share no common facts, and Student waited months to file, so District's hearing dates stand.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's records case with San Luis Coastal's two cases over the district's objection, finding shared facts about parental participation, and denied Student's continuance request as unnecessary.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over District's objection, finding both turn on the November 2015 IEP and that judicial economy outweighed Student's failure to follow the prehearing conference order.
- Order Granting Motions to Amend Complaint, Consolidate Matters and Continue the Due Process Hearing, Setting Dates and Denying Motion to DismissOAH consolidated Capistrano's and Student's cases over Student's objection because both turn on the January 2016 IEP and transportation. It also granted Capistrano's amendment and continuance and denied Student's dismissal motion as moot.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing PHC OnlyOAH consolidated Manteca's assessment case with Student's earlier case because both involve the same parties, the same time period, and overlapping questions about assessing Student. Student's case is the primary case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted the parties' joint motion to consolidate District's and Student's due process cases because both involve common questions about Student's assessment and District's FAPE offers, sharing witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing MediationOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on whether the November 12, 2015 IEP offered a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. OAH also granted the parties' joint request to continue mediation.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases and continued the hearing to March 8, 2016, because both cases raise overlapping issues and will likely rely on the same evidence.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two due process cases against District, finding it was a disguised attempt to get around an earlier denial of Student's motion to amend.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Granting ConsolidationOAH granted a joint motion letting Student file a second amended complaint and consolidating it with District's case, because both turn on District's November 2015 assessments and eligibility.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted a joint motion to consolidate District's and Student's cases because both raise whether the November 2015 IEP offered a FAPE and whether Student is entitled to an independent educational evaluation.
2015
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated District's and Student's unopposed due process cases. Both turn on District's duty to implement Student's charter-school IEPs after a transfer, and District's case was moved to Student's January 2016 hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with San Francisco's assessment case over Student's objection, because both involve San Francisco's assessment of Student and share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with West Contra Costa's earlier case over Caliber's opposition, because both turn on the district's May 2015 psycho-educational assessment and Student's request for an independent evaluation.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Amend and Denying Motion to Continue as MootOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because they share common questions about District's assessment and Student's IEE request, granted Student's unopposed amendment, and denied District's continuance as moot.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated District's case defending its auditory processing assessment with Student's case alleging a failure to assess for central auditory processing disorder, and continued the hearing, finding common facts and no District objection.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both ask whether Student's 2013-2016 IEPs offered a FAPE and involve the same witnesses. The hearing stays on Student's existing schedule.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's opposed motion to consolidate its later-filed case with Student's case. Both cases involve Student's special education services since 2013-2014 and overlapping witnesses, so judicial economy favored one hearing.
- Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's opposed motion to consolidate because both cases involve the same June and July 2015 IEP offers. It refused to delay the hearing, which stays on Student's earlier dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Sacramento's cases over the District's opposition because they involve the same disciplinary event and overlapping FAPE periods, but kept each side's expedited hearing dates unchanged.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continue HearingOAH consolidated Student's case with District's earlier-filed case over District's objection, finding common questions about independent evaluations and FAPE, shared witnesses and evidence, and judicial economy.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and Torrance Unified's cases because both turn on whether Student belongs on a comprehensive public campus or in a non-public school, and kept the hearing dates from Student's earlier case.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's motion to consolidate over District's opposition because both cases turn on whether the December 4, 2014 IEP offer and its January 23, 2015 continuation meeting were adequate.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's request for independent evaluations with District's case to assess Student over Parents' objection, because both involve the same assessment plans and IEE request.
- Order Granting Joint Motion to Consolidate and Partially Granting Joint Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both challenge the same triennial offer. It granted a first continuance but denied the unexplained request for non-consecutive hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because both turn on whether District's July 2015 IEP offers Student a FAPE and will involve the same witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and California Education Authority's cases because both involve Student's services for 2013-2014 and 2014-2015, and kept the hearing dates already set in Student's first-filed case.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to add four new issues to a case whose hearing had already ended. Student may instead file a new due process complaint on those issues.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because both turn on the same assessments, IEP meetings, and FAPE offer, and will use the same witnesses and documents.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate the Alum Rock case with a case against Union Elementary School District as moot because Student had asked to dismiss the Union case.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to consolidate two cases against Los Angeles and to continue the second case, finding the cases shared no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on whether District's speech and language assessment was adequate and whether Parents are entitled to an independent assessment.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Amend Complaint and District's Motion to Consolidate and Continue the Dates in District's CaseOAH let Student amend the complaint and consolidated the Student and District cases, because both involve the 2014 triennial assessments and the December 18, 2014 IEP, and neither motion was opposed.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate two cases against Long Beach Unified because the independent evaluation claim and the later graduation claim shared no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with District's earlier assessment case because the cases involve different issues, witnesses, and evidence, and consolidation would add little judicial economy.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate with District's earlier assessment case. The cases involve different issues and evidence, and District's case, already continued once, was set for hearing within days.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's case with District's earlier-filed case because both involve common questions about Student's educational needs and program.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated the District's behavior assessment case with Student's case because the parties are the same, the issues overlap, witnesses will likely repeat, and Student did not oppose.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to BifurcateOAH consolidated District's eligibility case with Student's child find and FAPE case and denied Student's motion to bifurcate, because Student did not show separate hearings would promote speed and judicial economy.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Oakland's IEE-defense case with Student's later complaint over Oakland's opposition, because Oakland used the same September 2014 assessment to make the educational decisions Student challenges.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Consolidate and District's Motion to Continue District's CaseOAH consolidated Student's and San Dieguito's cases over the District's objection because both turn on whether the April 29, 2014 IEP offered a FAPE and share many of the same witnesses.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate and continue because the District's assessment case and Student's services case share no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Denying District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Garvey School District's motion to consolidate its triennial assessment case with Student's FAPE case because the cases share no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting ContinuanceOAH consolidated District's IEP-implementation case with Student's broader FAPE case over District's objection. Both cases share the question of whether District's 2014-2015 offer was appropriate, and a joint hearing avoids a second hearing on remedies.
- Order Partially Granting Student's Motion to Consolidate and Continuing and Resetting Consolidated Non-Expedited Hearing DatesOAH refused to fold Student's mid-hearing first case into the newer cases, but consolidated Student's second case with District's assessment case because both turn on the same 2015 assessments.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate, Vacating Hearing Dates, and Denying Motion to Continue the Due Process HearingOAH consolidated Student's case with Visalia's earlier case over Visalia's objection because both turn on the 2014-2015 FAPE offer, vacating Visalia's April hearing dates and moving to Student's May schedule.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's and Antioch's due process cases because both turn on Student's continued special education eligibility and share common witnesses.
- Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's child find and eligibility case with District's case defending its assessments, because both depend on whether the same speech-language and occupational therapy assessments were legally appropriate.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Davis's due process cases over Student's objection and continued the hearing. Both cases ask whether Davis offered and provided a FAPE in 2014-2015 and would share witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference of March 9, 2015 and (1) Denying Motion to Consolidate and (2) Granting Request for ObservationOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a newly filed case with Newport-Mesa's due process case because Student showed no good cause for filing it just before the prehearing conference.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate his broad FAPE case with District's assessment case because the cases share few common issues and consolidation would lengthen the hearing rather than save time.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Consolidate and Continuing District's CaseOAH consolidated Student's FAPE case with District's assessment case over District's objection, finding both turn on the same facts about assessing and teaching Student through the Rapid Prompting Method.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Folsom Cordova's assessment case with Student's FAPE case and continued Student's case, but rejected the parties' request for split hearing days and ordered consecutive hearing days.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Elk Grove's assessment case with Student's FAPE case because the cases share no common questions of law or fact, and granted a brief continuance for counsel's conflicting hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Castro Valley's due process cases because both ask whether the district offered a FAPE for 2013-2014. Student's case is the lead case, and hearing dates were reset.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and San Francisco's due process cases because both involve Student's 2014-2015 assessment and common witnesses, and Student did not oppose; the District's later-filed case became primary.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to consolidate District's independent evaluation case with Student's case. Both cases share common questions of law and fact about the evaluation and overlapping witnesses.
2014
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case against Los Angeles and Simi Valley with Los Angeles' own case, over Simi Valley's objection, because both involve Los Angeles' assessments and shared witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with Westminster's earlier case because both challenge the District's June 6, 2014 multidisciplinary assessment, the District did not oppose, and the same witnesses will testify.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Sunnyvale's due process case with Student's earlier case over Student's opposition, because both turn on whether the District offered a FAPE for 2014-2015 and would use overlapping witnesses and evidence.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over District's objection because both turn on whether District must fund an independent educational evaluation and involve the same witnesses and facts.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's new complaint with District's earlier case over District's objection to delay, because Student's claims mirror the defenses to District's offer and would use the same witnesses and exhibits.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied District's unopposed motion to consolidate its new case with Student's long-pending case because the issues arose later and delay would not serve judicial economy. OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Unruh claims.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Davis's due process cases over Davis's opposition because they share common questions of law and fact, witnesses, and evidence, and denied Student's backup continuance motion as moot.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference, Granting Motions to Amend and Consolidate and Dismissing San Bernardino County Department of Behavioral HealthOAH consolidated the District's and Student's cases because both involve Student's placement, services, and assessments, after Student dropped the county behavioral health department as a party, and granted District's unopposed amendment adding SELPA.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH consolidated Student's and District's unopposed cases because both turn on whether Student received a FAPE from April 2012 to April 2014, and dismissed Student's non-IDEA claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Arcadia's last-minute motion to consolidate its new assessment case with Student's earlier case, finding consolidation would delay or complicate Student's hearing set to begin days later.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Torrance's assessment case with Student's case because both turn on the same January 2014 assessments and IEE request. Student's later-filed case became the primary case.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's two due process cases against Lincoln over Parent's objection because they share parties, overlapping FAPE claims, time periods, and remedies, and continued the hearing to the second case's dates.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference of June 6, 2014; Granting Consolidation; Granting Request for ContinuanceOAH consolidated two cases between Desert Sands Unified and Student because they share the same parties and similar witnesses, and granted Student's continuance request made partly due to a family death.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Consolidating MattersOAH consolidated Parent's case with District's case over District's objection, because both turn on whether District's occupational therapy services and evaluation were appropriate and whether Student gets an independent evaluation.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH consolidated Student's and Twin Rivers' cases because both concern the district's 2013-2014 IEP offers. It denied the continuance as moot because the combined case keeps Student's existing hearing dates.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference, Granting District's Motion to Consolidate, and Continuing Prehearing ConferenceOAH consolidated District's newly filed case with Student's case over Student's opposition, because both turn on whether the December 3, 2013 IEP offer of District-provided intensive individual services was a FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request for Specific Hearing DatesOAH consolidated the District's and Student's cases because both challenge the April 2014 IEP. It denied the parties' joint request for specific hearing dates because OAH could not accommodate them.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate, Vacating Dates in District's Case and Resetting Hearing DatesOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over the same May 2013 IEP and vacated District's hearing dates, because Student is entitled to a resolution session in Student's own case.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH refused to combine Student's special education case against the District with his regional center fair hearing against Golden Gate. The two cases involve different laws, facts, parties and procedures.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference of April 7, 2014; Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's unopposed motion to consolidate Student's FAPE case with District's case, finding common questions of law and fact, common witnesses, and competing remedies, and set the hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Student's Request to ContinueOAH consolidated Val Verde's two cases against Student, one on assessments and one on its IEP offer, over Student's objection because the issues overlap, and denied Student's 60-day continuance request for lack of good cause.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Request to Advance the Hearing TimelineOAH consolidated the cases because they share parties and FAPE issues. It refused the District's request to keep its earlier hearing dates because Student never agreed to waive the resolution session.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate cases against two districts because they involved different respondents, different school years, different issues, and non-overlapping district witnesses.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference, Including Order Denying District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied District's motion to consolidate its newly filed complaint with Student's case and continue the hearing. District's complaint raised no new issues, and further delay would prejudice Student.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's IEE-funding case with District's case defending its assessments over Student's objection, finding common questions of law and fact and that the District bears the burden either way.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference of January 27, 2014; Order Granting District's Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's unopposed motion to consolidate its case with Student's case because both turned on which placement was appropriate and would use the same witnesses and documents.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to AmendOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate cases against County Probation and Riverside COE because they share no common legal or factual issues, and denied the motion to amend as moot.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's case with the High School District's case because both turn on whether Student was offered a FAPE for 2013-2014, saving witnesses from testifying twice and avoiding inconsistent rulings.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and to ContinueOAH denied District's motion to consolidate its late-filed assessment case with Student's pending case and to continue the hearing, finding District delayed filing despite knowing the facts for months.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases over Student's opposition, finding the assessment and FAPE issues sufficiently intertwined, and reset the timeline to the later-filed District complaint.
2013
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing MattersOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because both turn on whether the August 19, 2013 IEP and its nursing services offered FAPE. It reset the joint hearing for February 3-5, 2014.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's two cases over Student's objection. Both cases were directed at the District, the non-public school placement came through Student's District IEP, and the cases shared issues, parties, and witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because they share common questions of law and fact, consolidation serves judicial economy, and Student did not oppose.
- Order Following Status Conference, Denying Motion to Consolidate and Continuing HearingOAH denied Student's mid-hearing motion to consolidate Student's own case with District's case because three hearing days were already done, and continued the hearing to December 4, 2013.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases because both turn on whether District's September 2013 psycho-educational assessment was appropriate and whether Student is entitled to a publicly funded independent evaluation.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate Student's broader FAPE case with District's assessment case because the issues differ significantly and the motion came two weeks before an already twice-continued hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Motion to Consolidate, and Denying Motion to Dismiss as MootOAH consolidated Student's FAPE case with District's eligibility case because they share facts, witnesses, and issues. It also let Student amend her complaint, which made District's motion to dismiss moot.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference of September 6, 2013; Granting Consolidation of OAH Cases; Resetting Mediation, Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH consolidated the District's and Student's cases over the District's objection because both cases raised identical issues about the triennial IEP and assessment and involved similar witnesses.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's oral motion to consolidate his breach-of-settlement case with District's IEP case, finding the two complaints share no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's assessment case with Student's IEP case over District's objection, because both cases turn on the same May 2013 psychoeducational assessment, the same witnesses, and common facts.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's late oral motion to consolidate with the District's case because Student did not explain the delay, the issues differed, and Student's complaint had been found insufficient.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate without prejudice as moot because Student's complaint had already been found insufficient; Student may move again after filing an amended complaint.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated HCOE's assessment case with Student's broader FAPE case. Both turn on whether a school psychologist's assessment supported denying residential placement, and HCOE showed no prejudice from combining them.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated the District's earlier case with Student's later case because both concern the District's assessments, Student's request for independent evaluations, and the April 1, 2013 IEP offer.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate a special education case against Lodi Unified with a Lanterman Act fair hearing against Valley Mountain Regional Center because the cases share no common questions of law or fact.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's FAPE case with District's assessment-without-consent case over Student's opposition, finding common parties, overlapping assessment issues, and shared evidence and witnesses.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to BifurcateOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Student's objection because both turn on child find and the duty to assess, but denied District's request to hear eligibility first.
- Order 1) Granting Student's Motion to Amend Complaint; and 2) Denying Lake Elsinore Unified School District's Motion to Bifurcate, Change Venue and Set New Dates for HearingOAH denied Lake Elsinore's request to split off and relocate the hearing on claims against it because the claims share facts, parties, and witnesses with claims against San Luis; Student's unopposed amendment was granted.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's unopposed motion to join its third case, over its speech and language assessment, with two already-consolidated cases, because all three turn on the adequacy of District's triennial assessments.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated District's assessment case with Student's broader case. Both cases share questions about assessment and eligibility, and District did not oppose. The dates in Student's case now control.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference and Granting Motion to Consolidate OAH Cases 2013040291 and 2013050627OAH granted the District's motion to consolidate over Student's opposition because both cases ask whether the February 20, 2013 IEP offer was a FAPE and rely on the same witnesses and evidence.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference of May 8, 2013; Granting District's Request for Consolidation; Granting Student's Request to Amend Complaint; Resetting Hearing DatesOAH consolidated District's assessment case with Student's earlier case over Student's opposition, citing common assessment issues and judicial economy, and granted Student's unopposed amendment, resetting all timelines.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Denying Bifurcation of the HearingOAH denied RUSD's and RCOE's joint motion to hold separate hearings against each agency, finding the claims did not involve sufficiently distinct time periods, evidence, witnesses, or relief to justify bifurcation.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate and ContinueOAH denied District's second bid to consolidate and continue Student's failure-to-assess case, finding District tried to plead around a prior denial and the cases involve different time frames, facts, and remedies.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied the District's motion to consolidate its case with Student's earlier case because the two cases covered different time periods and consolidation would delay Student's hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH denied District's motions to consolidate and continue because Student's IEE-funding case and District's FAPE-offer case share no common questions of law or fact, and no good cause supported delay.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH granted District's motion to consolidate Student's two due process cases over Student's opposition, finding common parties, issues, evidence, and witnesses; needing more preparation time was not a valid objection.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Deferring Ruling on Motion to Bifurcate Residency IssuesOAH consolidated two siblings' cases against Coronado Unified because both turn on the District's residency defense, but left the request to bifurcate residency for the hearing judge at the prehearing conference.
- Amended Order Following Prehearing Conference and Denying Motion for ConsolidationOAH denied Student's last-minute motion to consolidate Student's broad complaint with District's narrow assessment case, finding no good cause and no gain in judicial economy with District's hearing a week away.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Consolidate With Case No. 2013020547OAH denied District's motion to consolidate as premature because Student's complaint was being amended and District's complaint had been found insufficient, so common issues could not yet be determined.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated Student's IEE case with the District's case defending its initial assessments over Student's objection, because both turn on whether the 2012-2013 assessments were appropriate.
- Order Granting Motion to ConsolidateOAH consolidated the dueling triennial assessment cases over District's objection, but refused to keep the earlier March hearing dates because District had not waived its resolution session in Student's new case.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate and Continuing Initial Hearing DatesOAH consolidated Student's and District's due process cases because both involved the adequacy of Student's assessments and the appropriateness of his recent IEPs, and reset hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion for ConsolidationOAH consolidated Student's child find case with District's case defending its speech and language assessment. The cases share facts, witnesses and remedy issues, and the District case was moved to Student's hearing dates.
- Order Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Student's motion to consolidate because the District's narrow case, about who may assess Student under the assessment plan, shares no common question of law or fact with Student's broader FAPE case.
- Order Denying Motion to Consolidate and Motion to Continue Student's CaseOAH denied District's last-minute motion to consolidate its IEE case with Student's case and continue the hearing, because the cases raised different issues and the delay conflicted with IDEA timeliness.
- Order Granting District's Motions to Consolidate and Continue Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH consolidated Student's and District's cases over Parents' objection, finding overlapping IEPs, assessments, and witnesses, and moved Student's hearing to the March 2013 dates already set in District's case.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing ConferenceOAH consolidated Student's case with District's two already-consolidated cases at the parties' joint request because they share common questions of law and fact, witnesses, and evidence, and set issues for hearing.