California OAH special education order · April 7, 2015
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2015010431, 2014121009 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Folsom-Cordova's motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. Student's amended complaint had been deemed filed, replacing the complaint the motion challenged.
This case went to decision
Student v. Folsom Cordova Unified School District (consolidated): Folsom Cordova Unified must provide 54 tutoring hours for a missing attention goal and English instruction gaps; may assess without consent. (2015)
Summary
Folsom-Cordova moved to dismiss issues in Student's complaint, arguing they fell outside the statute of limitations and outside OAH's jurisdiction. Student opposed the motion. Before OAH ruled, Student was granted leave to amend, and the amended complaint was deemed filed. OAH denied the motion without prejudice as moot because it attacked a complaint no longer being litigated, leaving Folsom-Cordova free to file a new motion aimed at the amended complaint.
Why it matters
Filing an amended complaint wipes out pending motions to dismiss aimed at the original complaint. The district must then file a new motion against the amended pleading, which can give families a chance to fix problems with timeliness or 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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015010431 v.
FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2014121009
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On January 9, 2015, Student filed a due process hearing request naming Folsom- Cordova as respondent. On March 30, 2015, Folsom-Cordova filed a motion to dismiss issues in Student’s complaint that are outside of the statute of limitations and outside of the Office of Administrative Hearing’s jurisdiction. On April 2, 2015, Student opposed the motion. On April 2, 2015, Student’s motion to file an amended complaint was granted and Student’s amended complaint was deemed filed on that day. Filing an amended complaint renders Folsom-Cordova’s motion to dismiss moot as it challenged a complaint that is no longer being litigated. In light of the forgoing, Folsom-Cordova’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice in the event Folsom-Cordova seeks to file a motion to dismiss based on Student’s amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 7, 2015
/S /
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings