California OAH special education order · February 3, 2017
Order Denying Peremptory Challenge
OAH Case No. 2016090258, 2016050770 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied District's peremptory challenge to ALJ Adrienne Krikorian as untimely because District attached it to an opposition in a different case instead of filing it separately in these consolidated cases.
This case went to decision
Student v. Anaheim City School District (consolidated): Anaheim City School District cannot implement its vague placement offer without consent, but Student's three FAPE claims are denied. (2017)
Summary
District tried to use a peremptory challenge to remove ALJ Adrienne Krikorian from the consolidated cases. The deadline was January 24, 2017. District attached the challenge as the last four pages of its opposition to a motion to dismiss in an unrelated case number, and OAH did not learn of it until Student's counsel asked about its status. OAH ruled that the challenge was never properly filed as a separate document in this case, so it was untimely and denied.
Why it matters
A peremptory challenge has a strict deadline and must be filed as its own document under the correct case number. One buried in another filing in a different case does not count, and the right to change judges is lost.
People named in the order
- Adrienne Krikorian, Administrative Law Judge (subject of peremptory challenge)
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016090258 v.
ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2016050770 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
ORDER DENYING PEREMPTORY
CHALLENGE
On February 2, 2017, Student’s counsel inquired from the Office of Administrative Hearings as to the status of a peremptory challenge that had purportedly been filed by the Anaheim City School District on January 24, 2017, seeking to disqualify Administrative Law Judge Adrienne Krikorian from deciding this case. Such peremptory was due on or before January 24, 2017, pursuant to a January 20, 2017 OAH order setting that deadline.
Upon investigation, OAH determined that the peremptory had not been properly filed.
Instead, it had been attached to a different filing (District’s Opposition to a Motion to Dismiss in OAH Case No. 2017010004), and filed as the last four pages of that other document. As such, it was not properly filed in the relevant case number and was not brought to OAH’s attention until Student’s counsel’s inquiry.
District’s peremptory challenge was improperly filed under a different case number, attached to an unrelated document in that case. It was never properly filed as a separate document in the instant case. District’s peremptory challenge was not timely filed. As such, it is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 3, 2017
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings