California OAH special education order · March 8, 2017
Order Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2017010041 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Parent's motion to dismiss District's complaint because the motion argued the merits and mootness rather than matters facially outside OAH jurisdiction, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
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
Parent, on Student's behalf, moved to dismiss District's complaint. Parent argued the merits of District's claims and said the complaint was moot because its only issue was resolved at mediation. Parent later filed documents as added evidence. District opposed, saying the matter did not fully resolve at mediation and it never agreed to dismiss. OAH denied the motion because it sought a ruling on the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure. All existing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A motion to dismiss at OAH works only for claims that are plainly outside OAH's jurisdiction. Arguments that the other side's claims are wrong, or were settled at mediation when that is disputed, must be decided at 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:
ANAHEIM CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2017010041 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On March 1, 2017, Parent on Student’s behalf filed a motion to dismiss District’s complaint. The motion to dismiss argued the merits of District’s claims. Parent also claimed District’s complaint is moot because its only issue was resolved at mediation. On March 2, 2017, District filed an opposition, arguing in part that the matter did not fully and completely resolve at mediation and District did not agree to dismiss its complaint at mediation. On March 6, 2017, Parent filed a “Motion to Present Documents into Evidence by Defendants.”
Parents’ second “Motion” will be considered as additional evidence in support of Student’s motion to dismiss.
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, the Motion, including the additional evidence offered on March 6, 2017, is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits of District’s claims. Accordingly, the motion is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 8, 2017
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings