California OAH special education order · May 15, 2015
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2015040382 · ALJ Caroline A. Zuk
OAH denied District's motion to dismiss an adult Student's complaint, finding District's argument that its FAPE duty ended when Student exited special education was a merits question requiring a hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District: Santa Monica-Malibu Unified had to respond to an unenrolled adult student's IEP requests; claims about implementing his old IEP were dismissed. (2015)
Summary
District moved to dismiss Student's entire complaint. It argued that Student, a non-conserved adult over 18, voluntarily left school and exited special education at the end of twelfth grade in 2011-2012, which ended any duty to provide a FAPE. Student claimed District denied him a FAPE from March 2013 to March 2015. OAH denied the motion because special education law has no summary judgment procedure, and District's motion asked for a ruling on the merits rather than raising claims plainly outside OAH's jurisdiction.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a motion to dismiss to end a case early on a factual defense, such as a claim that an adult student gave up special education. Those disputes must be decided at hearing on the evidence, so adult students who left school can still have their FAPE claims heard.
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. 2015040382 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
On March 27, 2015, Student filed a request for a due process hearing. On May 6, 2015, District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s complaint in its entirety. On May 11, 2015, Student filed an opposition. On May 14, 2015, District filed a reply. The parties did not file any supporting declarations.
District contends that Student is a non-conserved adult over the age of 18, and that any obligation to provide him a free appropriate public education terminated upon his voluntary and unilateral decision at the end of twelfth grade (2011-2012 school year) to disenroll and exit special education. Student contends that District failed to provide him a FAPE between March 2013 and March 2015 for several reasons.
Although 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. Here, District’s motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits, which is only appropriate after the hearing officer makes findings of fact. Accordingly, the motion is denied. All dates previously set are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 15, 2015
/S /
CAROLINE A. ZUK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings