California OAH special education order · March 29, 2017
Order Directing Respondent Pasadena Unified School District to File Response to Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017020642 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH ordered Pasadena Unified to file its overdue response to Student's due process complaint, warning that the District will pay any costs to Student caused by a resulting hearing delay.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint on February 8, 2017. The District's response was due February 20, 2017, but OAH had no record of one, and hearing was set for April 4 through 6, 2017. Citing the Ninth Circuit's new decision in M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District, OAH on its own motion ordered the District to file and serve a legally compliant response by 4:00 p.m. on March 30, 2017. The order warned that if the failure to respond delays the hearing, the District will be charged any resulting costs to Student.
Why it matters
Under M.C. v. Antelope Valley, a district that does not file a timely response to a due process complaint cannot simply go to hearing. OAH must order a response and shift the cost of the delay to the district, even if the district ultimately wins. Parents should check whether the district has filed its required response and raise it if not.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code, § 56502(d)(2)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 2017 WL 1131821
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. 2017020642 v. ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL
PASADENA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TO FILE RESPONSE TO
DISTRICT. DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
On February 8, 2017, Student filed a request for a due process hearing (complaint), naming Pasadena Unified School District as respondent. The prehearing conference was held on March 27, 2017 and the hearing is scheduled for April 4, 5 and 6, 2017.
State and federal law require a local education agency to make a response to a due process complaint within 10 days of receiving the complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56502(d)(2)(A);
Individuals with Disabilities Act, 20 USCA §1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R., § 300.508.)
Accordingly, District was required to provide a response to the complaint by February 20,
20171. The Office of Administrative Hearings has no record of District responding to the
complaint.
The case of M.C. by and through his guardian ad litem M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 2017 WL 1131821, decided March 27, 2017, states:
When a school district fails to file a timely answer, the ALJ must not go forward with the hearing. Rather, it must order a response and shift the cost of the delay to the school district, regardless of who is ultimately the prevailing party.
(Id, Slip Opinion, p. 18.)
Pasadena Unified School District is hereby ordered to file and serve a response to the complaint no later than 4:00 p.m., March 30, 2017, which complies with state and federal The tenth day following the complaint’s filing fell on a Saturday; therefore, the response was due the following Monday, February 20,, 2017.
law.2 District’s failure to file the response will delay the hearing and the District will be assessed any cost to Student caused by such delay.
.
DATE: March 29, 2017
CLIFFORD H. WOOSLEY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings If District has already prepared and served a response to the complaint upon Student, District need only file the response and proof of service with OAH.