California OAH special education order · March 30, 2017
Order Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2017010024 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's complaint because no legal authority allows dismissing a complaint over a district's alleged failure to provide requested education records.
This case went to decision
Tracy Unified School District v. Student: Tracy Unified must fund an independent psycho-educational evaluation after its triennial assessment was found legally deficient. (2017)
Summary
Student moved to dismiss District's due process complaint. Student argued that District had not fully complied with a January 2017 records request, which deprived OAH of jurisdiction and prevented a fair hearing. District opposed. OAH found that Student did not claim the complaint was facially outside OAH's jurisdiction, and that no legal authority supports dismissing a complaint for failure to produce records. OAH denied the motion, kept the April 5, 2017 hearing on schedule, and left Student free to seek other forms of relief.
Why it matters
A district's failure to turn over records will not get its complaint dismissed. Parents facing incomplete records should instead ask OAH to order compliance with the records law, for example through a motion to compel.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(a)(1)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(3)
- Ed. Code, § 56504
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(4)
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:
TRACY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2017010024 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On December 27, 2016, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Student.
On March 24, 2017, Student filed a Motion to Dismiss District’s complaint. Student contends that: (1) OAH lacks jurisdiction to hear the complaint because District failed to comply with Student’s request for records; (2) District’s failure to produce records is prejudicial and denies Student’s ability to have a full and fair hearing; and (3) requiring Student to proceed to hearing without records is a deprivation of Student’s rights to effective representation and examination of witnesses.
On March 28, 2017, District filed an opposition to the motion. On March 29, 2017, Student filed a response to District’s opposition.
The due process hearing is scheduled to begin on April 5, 2017.
APPLICABLE LAW
Pursuant to the procedural safeguards set forth in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et. seq.), parents of a child with a disability shall have the opportunity to inspect and review all education records with respect to the identification, evaluation, and educational placement of the child. (34 C.F.R. §300.501(a)(1); see Ed. Code, § 56504.) Parents also have the right to receive copies of education records. (Ed. Code, § 56504.) The public agency shall comply with a request for school records without unnecessary delay before any individualized education program meeting, resolution session, or due process hearing and in no case more than five business days after the request is made, orally or in writing. (Ibid.)
A hearing officer may order a local educational agency to comply with IDEA procedural requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(3); Ed.
Code, § 56505, subd. (f)(4).)
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, which would require a ruling on the merits of the complaint, prior to an evidentiary hearing.
DISCUSSION
Student contends that District failed to comply with his January 20, 2017 request for education records. Student acknowledges receipt of some records but contends that some documents were inaccurate, missing, and/or incomplete. Student identified the documents he contends are missing in his motion.
District contends that there is no legal authority for dismissing a complaint based upon an alleged failure to provide student records and that some of the records Student requested will be produced as evidence for the hearing.
Student does not contend that District’s complaint is facially outside of OAH jurisdiction. Instead, Student seeks relief for District’s alleged failure to comply with a request for records, arguing that it interferes with Student’s ability to effectively participate in the due process hearing.
There is no legal authority for dismissing a complaint based upon an alleged failure to provide student records. Therefore, Student’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. The matter shall proceed as scheduled. However, this ruling is without prejudice to Student seeking other forms of relief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 30, 2017
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings