California OAH special education order · June 14, 2013
Order for Submission of Additional Evidence
OAH Case No. 2013050864 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH deferred ruling on District's statute-of-limitations motion to dismiss. It ordered both sides to submit authenticated fax records showing whether Student's complaint was actually filed on May 17, 2013.
Summary
District moved to dismiss Student's Issue A, about a May 17, 2011 IEP, as barred by the two-year statute of limitations because the complaint was filed May 22, 2013. Student responded that the complaint was first faxed on May 17, 2013 and was re-filed on May 22 with a corrected caption at OAH's request. Student's proof of service did not mention Student and had a partly obscured fax time stamp, so OAH did not rule yet. Instead, OAH ordered Student and District each to submit, within three business days, complete copies of the May 17 fax with legible transmission confirmations, authenticated by sworn declarations.
Why it matters
When a claim sits right at the two-year deadline, the filing date can decide whether it survives. Families should keep complete, legible fax or e-filing confirmations and proofs of service for every complaint they file.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)
People named in the order
- Vincent Matthews, District superintendent
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. 2013050864
v. ORDER FOR SUBMISSION OF
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On June 3, 2013, San Jose Unified School District (District) filed a motion to dismiss a portion of Student’s due process hearing request (complaint). District asserted, in part, that Student’s Issue A regarding an individualized education program (IEP) dated May 17, 2011, was barred by two-year statute of limitations for special education due process claims, because Student did not file his complaint until May 22, 2013. (See Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C).)
On June 5, 2013, Student filed an opposition, arguing in part that Student fax filed his complaint on May 17, 2013, but re-filed the complaint on May 22, 2013 with a corrected caption at the request of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Student’s opposition was supported by the sworn declaration of counsel, and a proof of service that (i) made no reference to Student and (ii) had a partially obscured transmission date and time stamp.
OAH requires further information concerning the alleged May 17, 2011 filing prior to ruling on District’s motion.
Accordingly, Student shall, within three business days from the date of this order, submit a complete copy of the complaint allegedly filed with OAH by fax on May 17, 2013 with all transmission information clearly legible, including the proof of service for that complaint and a printed confirmation of the date and time of the May 17, 2013 fax transmission. District shall, within three business days from the date of this order, submit a complete copy of the complaint allegedly served by fax on District’s superintendent Vincent Matthews on May 17, 2013, with any additional documentation in District’s possession Regarding the date and time that the fax transmission was received. All documents submitted shall be clearly identified and authenticated by sworn declarations.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 14, 2013 /s/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings