California OAH special education order · April 27, 2015
Order Denying Redwood Consortium's Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2015030342 · ALJ B. Andrea Miles
OAH kept Redwood Consortium in the case as a proper party. It is a public agency, and its representatives attended Student's IEP meetings and helped decide placement and services.
This case went to decision
Student v. Rincon Valley Union School District et al.: Rincon Valley Union and Redwood Consortium must reimburse up to $8,000 for preschool after failing to consider general education placement. (2015)
Summary
Redwood Consortium, a group of eight Sonoma County districts that provided special education services under contract with Rincon Valley, moved to dismiss itself from Student's due process case as an improper party. Student opposed the motion, and Rincon Valley did not. OAH found that the Consortium admitted it is a 'public agency.' OAH also found that its representatives took part as IEP team members in decisions about Student's placement and services. Because the Consortium was involved in decisions about Student, it is a proper party, and OAH denied the motion.
Why it matters
A consortium or other public agency that provides services and takes part in IEP team decisions can be named and kept as a respondent in due process. Parents can hold that agency accountable alongside the district.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56500
- Ed. Code, § 56028.5
People named in the order
- Erika Salazar, Declarant in support of Redwood Consortium's supplemental response
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. 2015030342 v. ORDER DENYING REDWOOD
CONSORTIUM’S MOTION TO
RINCON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL DISMISS
DISTRICT & REDWOOD CONSORTIUM
FOR STUDENT SERVICES
On April 20, 2015, Student filed a due process complaint (complaint) naming Rincon Valley Union School District and Redwood Consortium for Students as respondents. On January 21, 2014, Redwood Consortium filed a Motion to Dismiss on the basis that it was an improper party to the action. Student opposes Redwood Consortium’s motion. Rincon Valley does not oppose Redwood Consortium’s motion. On April 22, 2015, Administrative Law Judge B. Andrea Miles, Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order following Prehearing Conference which allowed the parties until close of business, Thursday, April 23, 2015, to submit any additional evidence or briefing on the issue.
On April 23, 2015, Redwood Consortium filed a Supplemental Response in support of its motion, which contained a declaration from Erika Salazar. On April 23, 2015, Student filed a reply to Redwood’s motion to dismiss.
APPLICABLE LAW
Although special education law does not provide a summary judgment procedure, 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…..), and which are easily provable. Here, the sole issue is whether Redwood Consortium is a proper party, a matter of jurisdiction which is easily provable without a formal summary judgment procedure.
In general, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act due process hearing procedures extend to “the public agency involved in any decisions regarding a pupil.” (Ed.
Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) A “public agency” is defined as “a school district, county office of education, special education local plan area, . . . or any other public agency . . . providing special education or related services to individuals with exceptional needs.” (Ed. Code, §§ 56500 and 56028.5.)
DISCUSSION
Redwood Consortium is a consortium made up of eight school districts in Sonoma County which provides special education services. As a member of Redwood Consortium, Rincon Valley contracted with Redwood Consortium as to implement Student’s individualized education program as a service provider. In its motion, Redwood Consortium concedes that it meets the definition of “public agency” under Education Code section 56501(a).
Although Redwood Consortium fits the definition of “public agency,” in order for it to be considered a proper party for a due process hearing, Redwood Consortium must also be involved in decisions regarding Student. In this case, representatives of Redwood Consortium attended Student’s IEP team meetings as team members and participated in making decisions regarding the placement and services being offered to Student. Therefore, the criteria set forth in Education Code sections 56500 and 56028.5 have been satisfied.
Accordingly, Redwood Consortium is a proper party to this action and its motion to dismiss is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 27, 2015 /s/
B. ANDREA MILES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings