California OAH special education order · October 19, 2015

Order Denying District's Motion to Dismiss

OAH Case No. 2015100237 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian

OAH denied Panama-Buena Vista's motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds because Student's new claims, including the expedited expulsion issues, involve conduct after the period covered by a January 2015 decision.

Denied Motions to dismiss

This case went to decision

Student v. Panama-Buena Vista Union School District: Panama-Buena Vista Union wins: student's challenge to his January 2015 expulsion is barred by collateral estoppel. (2015)

Summary

District asked OAH to dismiss Student's complaint, arguing that its issues had already been decided after a hearing in January 2015. OAH found that the earlier decision covered only District conduct before November 24, 2014. The current complaint raises issues after that date, including expedited issues about Student's expulsion. Because the motion was not limited to claims facially outside OAH's jurisdiction, any overlap or time limits were left for the hearing judge to decide, and all dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

A prior due process decision does not bar a new complaint about later events. Under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(o), parents may file separate complaints on issues not previously heard. Arguments about overlap with an earlier case go to the hearing judge, not to a summary motion to dismiss.

Key authority cited

20 U.S.C. § 1415(o)
34 C.F.R. § 300.513(c)
Ed. Code, § 56509
Allen v. McCurry (1980) 449 U.S. 90
Levy v. Cohen (1977) 19 Cal.3d 165
Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Resources Control Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921

Topics

motion to dismiss res judicata collateral estoppel expulsion prior decision

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. 2015100237 v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

PANAMA-BUENA VISTA UNION

SCHOOL DISTRICT.

On October 8, 2015, counsel for Panama-Buena Vista Union School District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s complaint. Student filed an opposition on October 12, 2015 and District filed a reply on October 13, 2015.

APPLICABLE LAW

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.

Federal and state courts have traditionally adhered to the related doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. (Allen v. McCurry (1980) 449 U.S. 90, 94 [101 S.Ct. 411, 66 L.Ed.2d 308]; Levy v. Cohen (1977) 19 Cal.3d 165, 171 [collateral estoppel requires that the issue presented for adjudication be the same one that was decided in the prior action, that there be a final judgment on the merits in the prior action, and that the party against whom the plea is asserted was a party to the prior action]; see 7 Witkin, California Procedure (4th Ed.), Judgment § 280 et seq.) Under the doctrine of res judicata, a final judgment on the merits of an action precludes the parties or their agents from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in that action. (Allen, supra, 449 U.S. at p. 94.) Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case. (Ibid.; Lucido v. Superior Court (1990) 51 Cal.3d 335, 341; see also Migra v. Warren City School Dist. Bd. of Ed. (1984) 465 U.S. 75, 77, n. 1 [104 S.Ct. 892, 79 L.Ed.2d 56] [federal courts use the term “issue preclusion” to describe the doctrine of collateral estoppel].)

The doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel serve many purposes, including relieving parties of the cost and vexation of multiple lawsuits, conserving judicial resources, and, by preventing inconsistent decisions, encouraging reliance on adjudication. (Allen, supra, 449 U.S. at p. 94; see University of Tennessee v. Elliott (1986) 478 U.S. 788, 798 [106 S.Ct. 3220, 92 L.Ed.2d 635.) While collateral estoppel and res judicata are judicial doctrines, they are also applied to determinations made in administrative settings. (See Pacific Lumber Co. v. State Resources Control Board (2006) 37 Cal.4th 921, 944, citing People v. Sims (1982) 32 Cal.3d 468, 479; Hollywood Circle, Inc. v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (1961) 55 Cal.2d 728, 732.)

However, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) contains a section that modifies the general analysis with regard to res judicata and collateral estoppel. The IDEA specifically states that nothing in the Act shall be construed to preclude a parent from filing a separate due process complaint on an issue separate from a due process complaint already filed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(o); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(c) (2006); Ed Code, § 56509.)

Therefore, although parties are precluded from relitigating issues already heard in previous due process proceedings, parents are not precluded from filing a new due process complaint on issues that could have been raised and heard in the first case, but were not.

DISCUSSION

Here, District seeks a dismissal of Student’s complaint, contending that the issues raised in this matter are the same issues raised in a previous complaint that were decided after hearing in January 2015. The January 2015 decision related to alleged conduct by District that occurred before November 24, 2014. The factual history in the current complaint includes facts from the previous case, but the allegations and issues extend beyond the date of November 24, 2014, the date on which the previous amended complaint was filed.

Specifically, the expedited issues in this matter relate to Student’s expulsion by District after November 24, 2014, which was not decided by the January 2015 decision.

District’s motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction. Whether or not the issues in this matter overlap the issues in the previous case or may require limitation as to time is a decision for the hearing officer to make and is not appropriate for a motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, the motion is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.