California OAH special education order · March 18, 2013
Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013020510, 2012110422 · ALJ Timothy L. Newlove
OAH denied Student's request to amend the complaint because amending would further delay a dispute pending since November 2012 and would revive an expedited issue Student had already dropped.
This case went to decision
Student v. Redlands Unified School District (consolidated): Redlands Unified prevails on all issues; assessments, IEPs, and behavior support plans upheld and June 2012 IEP offered FAPE. (2013)
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Redlands Unified School District in November 2012 that included an expedited issue. Student's counsel dropped that issue at a prehearing conference. The case was later consolidated with a District complaint. In February 2013, Student asked to file a first amended complaint that would bring back the expedited issue. OAH denied the request because amendment would restart timelines and further delay a long-running dispute, and because it sought to revive an issue Student had abandoned.
Why it matters
Dropping an issue at a prehearing conference can be hard to undo, because OAH may refuse a later amendment that brings the issue back. ALJs also weigh how much an amendment, which restarts hearing timelines, will delay a case that has been pending for months.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
REDLANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH CASE NOs. 2013020510 and
DISTRICT, 2012110422
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On November 14, 2012, Student, through counsel, filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) a Due Process Complaint, case number 2012110422, which named the Redlands Unified School District (District). This Due Process Complaint contained an issue which required expedited treatment, but counsel for Student dropped the expedited issue at a Prehearing Conference held in the case on December 5, 2013.
In February 2013, the District filed with OAH a Due Process Complaint, case number 2013020510, which named Student. On February 14, 2013, OAH issued an Order of Consolidation which joined the two cases and set a prehearing conference for March 18, 2013, and a due process hearing for March 25 through 28, 2013 On February 12, 2013, counsel for Student submitted to OAH a proposed First Amended Request for Due Process Hearing; Request for Expedited Due Process Hearing.
The proposed amended pleading sought to revive the expedited issue that Student had dropped two months previously.
An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) 1 The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
Here, a ruling on the motion to amend Student’s Due Process Complaint will operate to further continue a dispute that started in November 2012. Further, the motion seeks to 1 All statutory citations are to Title 20 United States Code unless otherwise indicated.
revive an issue that previously had been dropped from the case. Based upon these considerations, Student’s motion to file the proposed first amended complaint is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 18, 2013 /s/
TIMOTHY L. NEWLOVE
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings