California OAH special education order · November 1, 2013
Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013051091 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH denied Student's motion to amend without prejudice, even though District agreed, because the amendment added little and looked like a disguised request for a continuance.
This case went to decision
Student v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified offered FAPE in three high school IEPs; no reimbursement owed for private Westview School placement. (2014)
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against District in May 2013, then moved to amend it. District stipulated to the amendment. OAH denied the motion without prejudice and kept all hearing dates on calendar. The ALJ found the amended complaint barely differed from the original except for claims about a June 6, 2013 IEP offer, which Student described as substantially similar to earlier offers, and Student gave no explanation for not adding those claims sooner. Student may refile the motion with a declaration under penalty of perjury from counsel explaining the delay.
Why it matters
Because an amended complaint restarts the hearing timelines, OAH may refuse a late or minor amendment that looks like a way to delay the hearing, even when the district agrees. Parents' counsel should explain promptly and under oath why new claims were not added earlier.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013051091
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 24, 2013, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint), naming Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (District). On October 30, 2011, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request (amended complaint). The District stipulated to the filing of an amended complaint.
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).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
While the motion to amend the complaint is timely, an appearance exists that the request is a continuance request. A comparison of the May 24, 2013 complaint and the amended complaint demonstrates little or no change between the pleadings, except for the addition of allegations concerning the District’s June 6, 2013 individualized education plan (IEP) offer, which according to the amended complaint is substantially similar to the District’s prior IEP offers. Student’s motion does not set forth any explanation why an amended complaint that included allegations regarding the June 6, 2013 IEP was not filed sooner. Therefore, the motion to amend is denied without prejudice and all previously set dates shall remain on calendar. The motion to amend may be resubmitted by including a declaration under penalty of perjury from Student’s legal counsel why the complaint was not amended sooner to include allegations regarding the June 6, 2013 IEP team meeting.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 1, 2013 /s/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings