California OAH special education order · October 15, 2015
Order Denying Motion to File Second Amended Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015050320 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi
OAH denied Student's motion to file a second amended complaint. The case had been pending nearly six months and continued three times, and the District opposed and had a right to a resolution session on the new claim.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Mateo-Foster City School District: San Mateo-Foster City School District prevails; child find and safeguards violations were harmless because the student was not eligible. (2015)
Summary
Student asked to add a new claim that San Mateo-Foster City failed to timely assess Student under a June 30, 2015 assessment plan and failed to timely hold an IEP team meeting. The District opposed, arguing the claim was not ripe. OAH denied the amendment because the case had been pending nearly six months, had already been continued three times, and the District had a right to a resolution session on any new claim. OAH did not decide whether the new claim was ripe and noted Student may file a separate due process complaint.
Why it matters
Once a case has been amended and continued several times, OAH may refuse further amendments over the district's objection. Families can still raise new claims arising during the school year by filing a separate due process complaint.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(o)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(c)
- Ed. Code, § 56509
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. 2015050320 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE
SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
SAN MATEO-FOSTER CITY SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On April 30, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request naming San Mateo- Foster City School District. On June 1, 2015, the Office of Administrative Hearings granted the parties’ joint request for a continuance. On July 9, 2015, OAH granted a further continuance at the parties’ request.
On September 1, 2015, Student filed a motion to amend her complaint. On September 3, 2015, OAH granted Student’s motion to amend and the amended complaint was deemed filed as of September 3, 2015. This matter is scheduled for hearing starting on October 28, 2015.
On October 12, 2015, Student filed a second amended complaint which is deemed a motion to file a second amended complaint. On October 14, 2015, San Mateo-Foster City filed an opposition to Student’s second motion to amend her complaint on the grounds that Student’s newly asserted claim is not ripe for resolution.
APPLICABLE LAW
An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) 1 The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
1 All statutory citations are to title 20 United States Code unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
Student seeks to add a new allegation that San Mateo-Foster City failed to timely assess Student pursuant to a June 30, 2015 assessment plan and timely hold an individualized education program team meeting. Student has already been granted permission to file an amended complaint. Student now wishes to litigate a new claim based on acts occurring or failing to occur as the current school year unfolds. Student’s initial complaint has been pending for nearly six months and these issues need to reach adjudication in a timely manner as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This matter has been continued twice pursuant to the parties’ requests for continuance and continued a third time as a consequence of Student’s first amended complaint. Although Student proposes litigating the new issue on the currently calendared dates, San Mateo-Foster City opposes the amendment and has a right to proceed to a resolution session on Student’s proposed additional claim.
Accordingly, Student’s request to further amend her complaint is denied. 2 Student has the right to file a separate due process complaint alleging issues separate from those raise within her first amended complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(o); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(c); Ed.
Code, § 56509.)
ORDER
1. Student’s motion to file a second amended complaint is denied.
2. All dates remain as previously set.
DATE: October 15, 2015
/S/
THERESA RAVANDI
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 2 No determination is made as to whether Student’s proposed amended claim is ripe for adjudication.