California OAH special education order · March 24, 2017
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment
OAH Case No. 2017010041 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH denied Student's fourth motion to dismiss District's assessment complaint, treated as a summary judgment request, because it sought a ruling on the merits 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
District filed for due process seeking to assess Student without Parent's consent and without Parent's conditions. After three earlier motions to dismiss and a reconsideration request were denied, Student asked OAH to make District proceed with assessment or vacate its complaint, arguing District refused to assess properly given Student's disability and medical needs. District opposed, saying Student never appeared for assessment and there was a factual dispute about consent. OAH treated the request as a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment and denied it, because it addressed the merits rather than claims facially outside OAH jurisdiction, and confirmed all dates.
Why it matters
OAH will not dismiss a case on a motion that argues the facts or merits, and there is no summary judgment in special education cases. Parents who disagree with a district's claims generally must present that defense at hearing, and filing repeated merits-based motions will not succeed.
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 AND MOTION FOR
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. SUMMARY JUDGMENT
On December 28, 2016, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Student. District seeks to have Student assessed without Parent’s consent and without the limitations or conditions placed on the assessment by Parent.
On January 5, 2017, Student filed a motion to dismiss arguing the merits of District’s claims. The motion was denied by OAH on January 18, 2017 on the grounds that the motion sought a ruling on the merits of the dispute, which could not be determined on a motion.
On January 19, 2017, Student filed a second motion to dismiss arguing the merits of the allegations in the complaint. On January 24, 2017, OAH treated the motion as a request for reconsideration and denied the motion.
On March 1, 2017, Student filed a motion to dismiss, again arguing the merits of the District’s case, and that District’s issue was moot because it was resolved at mediation. On March 8, 2017, OAH denied Student’s motion on the grounds that it sought a ruling on the merits of District’s claims.
On March 10, 2017, Student filed a motion for reconsideration, which OAH denied on March 13, 2017.
On March 23, 2017, Student filed a “Request for District to Proceed with Student’s Assessment, IEP and ADA requests or Vacate their OAH complaint.” OAH interprets Student’s request as a motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment. Student argues that District’s complaint should be vacated because it has refused to conduct a proper assessment in accordance with Student’s disability and medical needs.
On March 24, 2017, District filed an opposition. District argues that while Parent has signed an assessment plan, Student has failed to appear for any assessment and Parent has resisted scheduling any assessment. The motion should be denied because there is a factual dispute as to whether parental consent has been given and whether District will be permitted to assess Student.
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 is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. Accordingly, Student’s motions are denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 24, 2017
LAURIE GORSLINE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings