California OAH special education order · March 28, 2017
Order Requiring Further Briefing Re: The Statute of Limitations; Requiring Filing of a Response to the Due Process Complaint; and Extending Decision Timeline
OAH Case No. 2016120826 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones
OAH ordered further briefing after District raised the statute of limitations for the first time in its closing brief, without ever filing a response to Student's complaint, and ordered District to file one.
This case went to decision
Student v. Torrance Unified School District: Torrance Unified wrongly exited student with autism and materially failed to implement behavior services; nonpublic agency social skills ordered. (2017)
Summary
After a four-day hearing, District raised a statute of limitations defense for the first time in its closing brief. District never raised it in its prehearing statement, at the prehearing conference, or at hearing, and OAH had no record that District ever filed the required response to Student's complaint. On its own motion, and relying on the Ninth Circuit's M.C. v. Antelope Valley decision, the ALJ ordered three things: Student must file a supplemental brief on the defense, including whether District waived it and whether more evidence is needed; District must file a reply brief; and District must file a statutory response to the complaint. The matter was continued to April 18, 2017.
Why it matters
A district that skips the required written response to a due process complaint and then raises new defenses late may face scrutiny, and possibly waiver arguments. Parents can rely on M.C. to argue they need fair notice of defenses before hearing.
Key authority cited
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 2017 WL 1131821
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(B), (D)
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. 2016120826 v. ORDER REQUIRING FURTHER
BRIEFING RE: THE STATUTE OF
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL LIMITATIONS; REQUIRING FILING
DISTRICT. OF A RESPONSE TO THE DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT; AND
EXTENDING DECISION TIMELINE
On March 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in the matter of M.C., etc. et al. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. March 27, 2017, No. 14-56344) F.3d [2017 WL 1131821]. (M.C.) Among other things, the court noted that the school district in that case had violated 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (c)(2)(B)(i)(I) by not providing an answer to the Student’s due process complaint, and emphasized the importance of such an answer to give notice of the issues, bind the answering party to a position, and to avoid prejudice to the opposing party at hearing. (M.C., supra, p. *5.)
The court’s decision in M.C. has particular relevance to this case, which was heard over the course of four days in February 2017. In this case, OAH has no record that Torrance Unified School District ever served on Student or filed with OAH a response to Student’s due process hearing request (Complaint). Neither party mentioned at any time during the course of the proceedings whether District had filed a response to the Complaint.
Yet, in its closing brief filed in the case on March 20, 2017, District raised, apparently for the first time, the defense of statute of limitations with respect to Student’s claims regarding the adequacy of the services and goals offered in Student’s individualized educational program of September 25, 2014. This defense was not raised in District’s prehearing conference statement. It was not raised at the PHC or included in the PHC Order. It was not raised at hearing or addressed in Student’s closing brief. It was not brought to the attention of the ALJ at any time prior to OAH’s receipt of District’s closing brief. Had District served and filed a response to Student’s Complaint, presumably it would have included the defense of the statute of limitations therein, and Student would have had notice of it and been able to address it during the proceedings in this case. Moreover, insofar as the parties’ closing briefs were filed simultaneously, as opposed to serially, Student has had no opportunity to respond to District’s recently developed contentions pertaining to the statute of limitations.
Based upon the court’s decision in M.C., supra, in the interests of providing due process to all parties in this matter, and in light of the foregoing circumstances, the ALJ orders as follows:
1. By no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 11, 2017, Student shall file with OAH and
serve on District a supplemental closing brief addressing District’s contentions regarding the applicability of the statute of limitations. Student’s brief shall also address (a) whether District has waived the statute of limitations; and (b) whether Student must present additional evidence to demonstrate that the statute of limitations does not apply, or that an exception to the statute of limitations applies.
2. By no later than 5:00 p.m. on April 18, 2017, District shall file a responsive
brief.
3. By no later than noon on April 3, 2017, District shall file with OAH and serve
on Student a response to Student’s Complaint that specifically addresses the issues raised in Student’s Complaint and any other matters required pursuant to Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(2)(B) and (D), so that the record is complete. If District has already served a statutory response to Student’s Complaint, District shall file that response with OAH by noon on April 3, 2017, and such filing shall be deemed sufficient compliance with this Order.
4. The matter is continued as of the date of this Order, until April 18, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 28, 2017
ELSA H. JONES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings