California OAH special education order · September 19, 2016
Order Denying Motion to File a Second Amended Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016060925, 2016050319 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH denied Student's opposed motion to file a second amended complaint because it added no new issues, only supporting facts and a new remedy that Student could still seek at hearing.
This case went to decision
Baldwin Park Unified School District v. Student: Baldwin Park Unified may move a student with an intellectual disability to a moderate/severe class without parental consent. (2016)
Summary
Four days before the prehearing conference, Student asked to file a second amended complaint, and District opposed. The proposed amendment added facts supporting Student's existing least restrictive environment claim, including that District's offer of a moderate/severe special day class in the Cornerstone program at De Anza Elementary School lacked enough mainstreaming. It also added a request that District reimburse Parents for an inclusion assessment. OAH found the amendment did not substantively change the first amended complaint and noted Student may argue for different remedies at hearing based on the evidence, so it denied the motion.
Why it matters
An amendment that only adds supporting facts or new remedies, without new issues, may be denied because it would restart the hearing timelines for no real change. Families can still ask for remedies at hearing that were not listed in the complaint if the evidence supports them.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016060925 v.
BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016050319
DISTRICT,
v.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO FILE A
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
On May 6, 2016, Baldwin Park Unified School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request (District’s Complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Parents on behalf of Student. On May 27, 2016, OAH granted District’s request to continue the due process hearing to August 23 through 25, 2016.
On June 20, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (Student’s Complaint). On July 27, 2016, Student filed a motion to consolidate his complaint with District’s Complaint; District did not oppose. OAH ordered these matters consolidated on July 28, 2016, setting hearing for the August 2016 dates previously set for District’s Complaint.
On August 11, 2016, OAH granted Student’s request to file a first amended complaint (Student’s Amended Complaint), with the due process hearing rescheduled for September 7,
2016. On August 30, 2016, OAH granted the parties’ joint request to continue the hearing to
the currently scheduled dates of September 27 through 29, 2016, with a prehearing conference of September 19, 2016.
On September 15, 2016, Student filed a motion to file a second amended complaint (Student’s Second Amended Complaint). On September 16, 2016, District filed an opposition to the motion.1 The parties’ counsel argued the motion at the September 19, 2016 prehearing conference.
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).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
Here, Student’s proposed Second Amended Complaint does not add issues, but merely includes factual assertions in support of the issues and seeks additional remedies.
Student’s First Amended Complaint asserts that District’s offer fails to provide Student with a FAPE because placement is not in the least restrictive environment. Student’s proposed Second Amended Complaint adds the factual assertions that District’s placement offer of a moderate/severe special day class in the Cornerstone program at De Anza Elementary School was not the least restrictive environment and, additionally, the offer did not provide sufficient mainstreaming. Student’s proposed Second Amended Complaint does not substantively amend Student’s First Amended Complaint. Student also seeks to add a remedy requesting that District reimburse Parents for the inclusion assessment. Student is free to argue for remedies that differ from those requested in the original complaint based upon the evidence at hearing.
Accordingly, Student’s motion to file a second amended complaint is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 19, 2016
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings