California OAH special education order · March 12, 2014
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2014020930 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's claim about missing occupational therapy in the 2014 extended school year offer as unripe, because the motion sought a ruling on the merits.
This case went to decision
Student v. Paso Robles Joint Unified School District: Paso Robles Joint Unified did not have to provide occupational therapy during a first grader's 2014 extended school year. (2014)
Summary
Student filed for due process claiming District's offer was inadequate because it did not include occupational therapy services for the 2014 extended school year. District moved to dismiss, arguing the claim was premature because it had no duty to offer ESY services yet. OAH denied the motion. It explained that it grants motions to dismiss only for claims plainly outside its jurisdiction, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure, so District's ripeness argument must be decided at hearing.
Why it matters
Districts generally cannot use a motion to dismiss to knock out a claim early by arguing about its merits or timing. Parents can challenge an ESY offer once it is made, and arguments that the claim is premature will be heard at hearing.
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. 2014020930
v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
PASO ROBLES JOINT UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On February 25, 2014, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, naming Paso Robles Joint Unified School District (District) as the respondent. Student alleged that District’s offer of a free appropriate public education was inadequate because it failed to offer occupational therapy services in the 2014 extended school year (ESY). On March 7, 2014, District filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion), alleging that Student’s claim is not ripe. On March 11, 2014, Student filed an opposition.
Although the Office of Administrative Hearings (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. District contends Student’s pursuit of due process regarding District’s allegedly inadequate offer of 2014 ESY services is premature because District is not obligated to offer ESY services prior to the 2013-2014 ESY period. 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 12, 2014 /s/
KARA HATFIELD
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings