California OAH special education order · November 2, 2016

Order Denying Delano Union's Motion to Dismiss and Request for Sanctions

OAH Case No. 2016100759, 2016100769 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian

OAH denied Delano Union's motion to dismiss and its sanctions request because both attacked the merits, and whether residency ends the District's duty to offer a FAPE requires findings at hearing.

Denied Sanctions and cost-shifting

Summary

Delano Union School District moved to dismiss Student's complaint and asked for sanctions. It argued it owed Student no free appropriate public education because Student no longer lived within District boundaries or attended a District school. OAH denied both requests. Special education law has no summary judgment procedure, and the residency question requires factual findings, so the claim is not facially outside OAH's jurisdiction. Student's conditional request for a sanctions hearing was found moot, and all dates were confirmed.

Why it matters

Districts cannot use a motion to dismiss or a sanctions request to win a factual dispute, such as residency, before hearing. OAH dismisses early only claims that are plainly outside its jurisdiction, such as civil rights or Section 504 claims.

Topics

motion to dismiss sanctions residency summary judgment fape jurisdiction

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. 2016100759 (Primary)

v.

DELANO UNION ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL DISTRICT AND DELANO

UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT,

DELANO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT , OAH Case No. 2016100769 v. ORDER DENYING DELANO UNION’S

MOTION TO DISMISS AND REQUEST

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. FOR SANCTIONS

Delano Union School District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s complaint on October 31, 2016, concurrently with its opposition to Student’s Motion for Stay Put and its Request for Sanctions. District’s Motion to Dismiss was supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury from District’s special education director. Student filed an opposition to the Motion to Dismiss and a conditional request for a sanctions hearing on November 1, 2016.

Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (for example, civil rights claims and section 504 claims), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure.

Here, District’s Motion to Dismiss addresses the merits of Student’s case. Its Motion for Sanctions also addresses the merits of Student’s case. District argues it has no duty to offer a free appropriate public education to Student because he does not currently reside within District’s boundaries and is not attending a District school. The issue of whether residency within District boundaries affects District’s duty to offer a FAPE to Student requires findings of fact by the hearing officer, and therefore Student’s claim is not facially outside of OAH jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is denied. District’s Motion for Sanctions is also denied, rendering Student’s request for a sanctions hearing moot All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: November 2, 2016

ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings