California OAH special education order · April 22, 2015
Order Denying Cabrillo Unified School District's Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2015030583 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's child find, assessment, and services claims because the motion sought a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
This case went to decision
Student v. Cabrillo Unified School District: Cabrillo Unified must reimburse about $75,393 for private school, mileage, and assessments after delaying assessment of a privately placed student. (2015)
Summary
District moved to dismiss Student's due process complaint. It argued that the child find, assessment, and service claims lacked merit because Student was privately placed and District was not responsible for Student's education, and it attached 13 exhibits. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion because OAH dismisses only claims that are facially outside its jurisdiction, such as civil rights or Section 504 claims, and District's motion instead asked for a ruling on the merits, which special education law does not allow before hearing.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a motion to dismiss with supporting exhibits to win disputed facts, such as a private-placement defense, before hearing. Parents' claims within OAH's jurisdiction generally go to a full hearing on the evidence.
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. 2015030583 v. ORDER DENYING CABRILLO
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S
CABRILLO UNIFIED SCHOOL MOTION TO DISMISS
DISTRICT.
On April 17, 2015, Cabrillo Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s due process hearing request on the grounds that the child find, assessment and service claims against it are without merit because Student was privately placed, and District was not responsible for Student’s educational program. In support of the motion, District submitted 13 exhibits, totaling 77 pages, purporting to be identified and authenticated by District’s counsel.
On April 21, 2015, Student filed an opposition.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (for example, civil rights claims and section 504 claims), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, District’s 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: April 22, 2015
/ S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings