California OAH special education order · December 28, 2015
Order Denying Second Motion to Unexpedite Hearing
OAH Case No. 2015111024 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied the parties' second joint motion to unexpedite because Student's claim that District failed to hold a manifestation determination meeting triggers a mandatory expedited hearing, even two years later.
Summary
Student and District jointly asked OAH, for the second time, to take the case off the expedited track. They argued that no discipline was pending and the conduct at issue happened in the 2013-2014 school year. OAH denied the motion. Student's amended complaint alleged that District suspended him for more than 10 school days without a manifestation determination meeting, and that claim falls under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(k), which requires an expedited hearing with no exception for old or resolved discipline.
Why it matters
Including a manifestation determination or disciplinary-removal claim in a complaint locks the case into an expedited hearing, and even a joint request cannot undo that. The only way off the expedited track is to withdraw the claim that triggered it, so parents and advocates should decide early whether to plead that claim.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)
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. 2015111024 v. ORDER DENYING SECOND MOTION
TO UNEXPEDITE HEARING
.CASTAIC UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
On November 24, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint)
against Castaic Union School District. On November 25, 2015, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Scheduling Order and Notice of Expedited and Non-Expedited Due Process Hearing and Mediation. On December 8, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion to unexpedite this matter and vacate the expedited dates. On December 9, 2015, the motion was denied. On December 11, 2015, Student filed an amended Due Process Hearing Request (amended complaint). On December 14, 2015, OAH issued a Scheduling Order and Notice of Expedited and Non-Expedited Due Process Hearing and Mediation. On December 23, 2015, the parties filed a Second Joint Motion to Unexpedite this matter and vacate the expedited dates. The grounds for the original and the second motions to unexpedite were the same, that there is no pending disciplinary matter against Student, and the disciplinary conduct at issue took place during the 2013-2014 school year. As discussed below, the second motion is denied. The expedited and unexpedited hearing dates remain as scheduled.
APPLICABLE LAW
A parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision by a school district regarding a change in educational placement of the child based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, or who disagrees with a manifestation determination made by the district, may request and is entitled to receive an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).) An expedited due process hearing before OAH must occur within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing is filed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) .) The procedural right to an expedited due process hearing is mandatory and does not authorize OAH to make exceptions or grant continuances of expedited matters. (Ibid.) In sum, a matter can only be unexpedited or continued if no issue is alleged that is subject to an expedited hearing, or if the student withdraws the issues in the complaint that triggered the expedited hearing.
DISCUSSION
In this case, Student’s amended complaint alleges in Allegation 14 that District suspended him for more than 10 school days without convening a manifestation determination team meeting. While the background factual allegations concern the 2013- 2014 school year, and two years have elapsed since the alleged failure to convene a manifestation determination meeting, that is not grounds to unexpedite this matter. Student’s allegations regarding District’s need to convene a manifestation determination team meeting lie within title 20 United States Code section 1415(k), and the hearing process for violations of these provisions of Section 1415 also lie within Section 1415(k), which provides for an expedited hearing. Neither Section 1415(k) nor the implementing regulations provide for an exception to the expedited hearing process because Student is no longer facing disciplinary conduct consequences. Accordingly, Student’s and District’s request to unexpedite this matter is denied.
ORDER
1. The motion to unexpedite the hearing dates is denied.
2. The hearing shall proceed as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 28, 2015
/S /
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings