California OAH special education order · April 26, 2013
Order Denying District's Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2013020685 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH denied ABC Unified's motion to dismiss Student's case or limit remedies because the motion sought a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
This case went to decision
Student v. ABC Unified School District: ABC Unified did not have to offer a residential treatment center to a student leaving a psychiatric hospital within its boundaries. (2013)
Summary
ABC Unified filed an amended motion to dismiss Student's case, or to dismiss some of Student's requested remedies. It argued it no longer owed Student anything because Student had left a psychiatric hospital. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion and confirmed all dates: the District's argument might be a defense at hearing but does not involve OAH's jurisdiction, and the remedies awarded in a due process case are within the ALJ's discretion.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a motion to dismiss to get early rulings on the merits or to strike requested remedies. Those arguments must be made at hearing, so parents' claims generally move forward unless they are plainly outside OAH's jurisdiction.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013020685
v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
ABC UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On April 24, 2013, the District filed an amended motion to dismiss Student’s case or to dismiss certain remedies from Student’s case. On April 24, 2013, Student filed an opposition to the motion. 1 Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc…..), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, the motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. Accordingly, the motion is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
The District’s motion argues that the District no longer has an obligation to Student because Student is no longer at the psychiatric hospital. While that argument might provide a defense at hearing, it does not involve OAH’s jurisdiction and is not a proper basis for a motion to dismiss. Likewise, the District’s objections to some of Student’s requested remedies are not a proper subject for a motion to dismiss – the remedies awarded in an due process case are within the discretion of the administrative law judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 26, 2013 /s/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 1 Student’s opposition to the amended motion to dismiss incorporated by reference an earlier opposition that Student claimed to have filed. However, Student’s original opposition papers have not been filed with OAH. Although the District’s motion must be denied in any event, it is suggested that Student’s counsel file the full opposition papers so the administrative record will be complete.