California OAH special education order · January 18, 2017
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2017010041 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's complaint because it sought a ruling on the merits, effectively summary judgment, which special education law does not provide.
This case went to decision
Anaheim Elementary School District v. Student: Anaheim Elementary may assess student without parental consent under its November 2016 comprehensive assessment plan. (2017)
Summary
District filed a due process complaint naming Student. Student filed a Notice of Objections arguing the complaint was meritless and misleading, that OAH cannot decide medical needs or medically ordered accommodations, that District discriminated under the ADA and violated the Education Code, and that District cannot do its own medical assessment. OAH treated the objections as a motion to dismiss, and District did not respond. OAH denied the motion because it went beyond matters facially outside OAH's jurisdiction and asked for a merits ruling, which amounts to summary judgment and is not available before District can develop a factual record at hearing.
Why it matters
A motion to dismiss at OAH works only for claims that are plainly outside OAH's jurisdiction. Arguing that the other side's complaint is wrong on the facts must wait for the hearing, because there is no summary judgment in special education cases.
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:
ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2017010041 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
DISMISS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On December 28, 2016, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Student.
On January 5, 2017, Student filed a Notice of Objections to District’s Complaint with Good Cause Showing, alleging that the allegations in the complaint are without merit and misleading, that OAH cannot decide Student’s medical needs or medically ordered accommodations, that District has discriminated against Student under the Americans with Disabilities Act, violated his rights under the California Education Code, and has no right to conduct its own medical assessment of Student. OAH interprets Student’s Notice of Objections as a Motion to Dismiss. OAH received no response to Motion from District.
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 fails to point to any authority that would require OAH to hear and determine the equivalent of a motion for summary judgment prior to giving District the opportunity to develop a factual record at hearing. Student’s Motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits, which is effectively a motion for summary judgment. The motion is therefore denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: January 18, 2017
LAURIE GORSLINE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings