California OAH special education order · January 11, 2017
Order Denying Motion for Summary Judgment
OAH Case No. 2016110599 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH denied Student's motion for summary judgment because special education law has no summary judgment procedure, and the motion sought a ruling on the merits rather than dismissal of claims outside OAH jurisdiction.
This case went to decision
Student v. Carlsbad Unified School District: Carlsbad Unified did not deny FAPE; the ALJ found parents' non-cooperation, not the District, delayed nonpublic school placement. (2017)
Summary
Student asked OAH to rule in his favor based on the terms of a September 2016 settlement agreement with Carlsbad Unified School District. District opposed the motion. OAH denied it, explaining that special education law does not provide for summary judgment. OAH will only grant pretrial motions that dismiss allegations facially outside its jurisdiction, and this motion sought a ruling on the merits. The case will proceed to hearing on Student's amended complaint, and the ALJ noted that any motion to dismiss would have been moot once the amendment was granted.
Why it matters
Parties cannot win a special education due process case through a summary judgment motion at OAH. Merits disputes, including those based on settlement terms, must go to hearing.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016110599 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
CARLSBAD UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
Student filed a request for due process (complaint) on November 8, 2016, naming the Carlsbad Unified School District. On January 6, 2017, Student filed a motion for summary judgement, requesting that the Office of Administrative Hearings rule in his favor based on the terms of a settlement agreement executed by the parties in late September 2016. District filed an opposition to the motion on January 10, 2017. Also on January 6, 2017, Student filed a motion to amend his complaint, which the Office of Administrative Hearings granted in a separate order dated January 11, 2017.
APPLICABLE LAW AND ORDER
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc…..), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, Student’s motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead specifically seeks a ruling on the merits. Thus, the motion is denied. This matter shall proceed to hearing based upon Student’s amended complaint.1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 11, 2017
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 1 Even had Student filed a motion to dismiss rather than a motion for summary judgment, his motion would have been rendered moot by the granting of Student’s motion to amend his complaint.