California OAH special education order · February 6, 2017
Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016090918 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied Student's motion to amend the complaint because it was filed only five days before hearing and lacked the good-cause declaration required by the prehearing conference order.
This case went to decision
Student v. Buena Park School District: Buena Park School District must provide 116.6 hours of compensatory services for limiting a student to home/hospital instruction; other claims time-barred. (2017)
Summary
Five days before hearing, Student filed an amended due process complaint against Buena Park School District, which OAH treated as a motion to amend. District opposed, arguing prejudice and no gain in fairness or efficiency. OAH denied the motion for two reasons. Federal law allows an ALJ to permit an amendment only more than five days before hearing, and Student did not file the good-cause declaration the prehearing conference order required for late motions, even though Student knew of the new issues before filing the original complaint. The hearing went forward as scheduled.
Why it matters
Amendments must be sought more than five days before hearing, and late motions after a prehearing conference need a sworn good-cause declaration. Parents should raise all known issues early, or they may be shut out of the current hearing.
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016090918 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
AMEND COMPLAINT
BUENA PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On September 19, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Buena Park School District.
On February 2, 2017, Student filed an Amended Due Process Hearing Request (amended complaint), which is treated as a motion to amend. On February 6, 2017, District filed an opposition on numerous grounds. As discussed below, the motion to amend the complaint is denied. The hearing will commence as scheduled.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
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).)
The motion to amend was filed on February 2, 2017. The hearing is set to commence tomorrow, February 7, 2017. The hearing officer may grant permission to amend, but only provided that the permission is granted “more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing.” Here, since the motion to amend was filed on, and not before, the fifth day prior to the hearing, “more than five days” notice was not provided, the motion is untimely and permission to amend is not granted.
In addition, in this case the prehearing conference was held on January 27, 2017. The Prehearing Conference Order, issued on January 30, 2017 stated: “Any motion filed after this date shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause as to why the motion was not made prior to or during the prehearing conference of January 27, 2017.” The amended complaint was not supported by a declaration establishing good cause as to why the amended request was not filed before the prehearing conference on January 27,
2017. Student raised issues in the amended complaint that Student was aware of before the
complaint was filed. District argues that it is prejudiced if Student is permitted to amend the complaint two business days before the hearing, and that amending the complaint will not result in an increase in fairness or result in judicial efficiency or economy.
Accordingly, the motion to amend is denied. All previously set dates shall remain on calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: February 6, 2017
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings