California OAH special education order · May 9, 2014

Order Limiting Issue for Hearing

OAH Case No. 2014020485 · ALJ Margaret Broussard

OAH, on its own motion, removed Modesto's March 4, 2014 IEP from the hearing. The district never amended its complaint to add that IEP, so OAH lacked jurisdiction over it.

Ruling Jurisdiction

Summary

Modesto filed for due process to show that its September 26, 2013 and January 10, 2014 IEPs offered Student a FAPE. Its request to amend the complaint was denied, and it never filed an amended complaint covering the later March 4, 2014 IEP. Even so, Modesto's prehearing statement framed the issue around the March 4 IEP, and the prehearing order adopted that framing. While preparing for hearing, the ALJ noticed the mismatch and ruled on her own motion that only the September and January IEPs are at issue, because the complaint did not give Student notice of the March 4 IEP and OAH cannot hear issues not raised in the complaint.

Why it matters

A district (or parent) cannot add a newer IEP to a hearing through a prehearing conference statement. Only the complaint, or a properly granted amended complaint, defines what OAH can decide. Parents can rely on the complaint to know what is at stake.

Key authority cited

20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

Topics

scope of hearing issues not in complaint amended complaint district-filed case notice

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:

MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS, OAH Case No. 2014020485 v. ORDER LIMITING ISSUE FOR

HEARING

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.

On February 13, 2014, Modesto City Schools (Modesto) filed a due process hearing request (complaint), naming Student. When the case was filed, Modesto’s issue for hearing was whether it had offered Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2013- 2014 school year. At that time, Modesto alleged that there were two individualized education programs (IEP’s) offered for the 2013-2014 school year: September 26, 2013 and January 10, 2014. Modesto requested leave to file an amended complaint on February 26,

2014. In the amended complaint, Modesto indicated that that an IEP team meeting was

scheduled for March 4, 2014. The request was denied and Modesto did not file an amended complaint after the March 4, 2014 IEP team meeting, moving to include the IEP developed at that team meeting in this case.

Modesto filed a prehearing conference statement in this matter on April 30, 2014. In the prehearing conference statement, Modesto framed the issue for hearing as whether the March 4, 2014 IEP offered Student a FAPE. Student did not file a prehearing conference statement and the order after prehearing conference identifies the issue for hearing as:

Does the March 4, 2014 individualized education program (IEP) offer Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment? However, Modesto’s complaint did not put Student on notice that the March 4, 2014 IEP was at issue in the upcoming hearing. Furthermore, the Office of Administrative Hearings lacks jurisdiction to hear an issue not identified in the complaint. The undersigned administrative law judge, in preparing for the upcoming hearing, has noticed the discrepancy in the IEP dates and clarifies the issue for hearing, as set out below, on her own motion.

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).)

In this case, no amended complaint has been filed to add the March 4, 2014 IEP.

Therefore, the issue in the hearing is whether Modesto’s IEP offers of September 26, 2013 and January 10, 2014 offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. The March 4, 2014 IEP, and Modesto’s request to implement the IEP over parental objection, are not properly before the ALJ in this matter at this time.