California OAH special education order · May 16, 2017

Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint

OAH Case No. 2017030442 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky

OAH granted Student's motion to amend over District's objection. The motion was timely, and one hearing on overlapping issues serves judicial economy and avoids inconsistent rulings.

Granted Amending the complaint

This case went to decision

Student v. Chula Vista Elementary School District: Chula Vista Elementary must fund behavior and occupational therapy evaluations and train staff; auditory processing assessment claim denied. (2017)

Summary

Student asked to amend her complaint to add issues from the same time period that related to District's most recent IEP offer. Counsel said the new allegations were based on information not known when the original complaint was filed. At the prehearing conference, District opposed the motion orally. It argued that resetting the timelines would prejudice Student and that witnesses might not be available for a summer hearing. OAH granted the motion because it was filed more than five days before hearing, and a single hearing would avoid duplicate proceedings and inconsistent rulings. All timelines were reset as of the order date.

Why it matters

OAH generally allows timely amendments that add related claims from the same period, even over objection, because one combined hearing is more efficient. Parents should expect all timelines, including the hearing date, to restart when an amendment is granted.

Key authority cited

20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

Topics

motion to amend amended complaint timelines reset judicial economy prehearing conference

Order details

OAH case number: 2017030442
Order date: May 16, 2017
Order type: Amending the complaint
Ruling: Granted
Administrative law judge: Darrell Lepkowsky
Moving party: Student
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Chula Vista Elementary School District
Student's counsel: Paul A. Hefley, Jr.
District's counsel: Pamela Townsend
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

May 16, 2017: Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint
July 10, 2017: PHC continued to July 14, 2017 for settlement; hearing remains set for July 20, 2017. (PDF)
August 30, 2017: Board rejected settlement; prehearing conference set October 23, 2017, hearing October 31, 2017. (PDF)
October 23, 2017: Prehearing order set issues and October 31, 2017 hearing; granted audio recording and telephonic testimony. (PDF)
October 27, 2017: Student's peremptory challenge granted; case reassigned from ALJ Hatfield to ALJ Lehrman, hearing dates unchanged. (PDF)
Decision (2017-12-20)

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:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017030442 v. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING

CONFERENCE; ORDER GRANTING

CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT

DISTRICT.

On May 15, 2017, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Darrell Lepkowsky, Office of Administrative Hearings. Paul A. Hefley, Jr., Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Parents on behalf of Student. Pamela Townsend, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of the Chula Vista Elementary School District. The ALJ recorded the PHC.

MOTION TO AMEND

Student filed her complaint on March 8, 2017. On March 15, 2017, Student filed a motion to amend her complaint. Her proposed amended complaint raises several issues that allegedly occurred during the same period of time covered by Student’s original complaint and are interrelated to the issues in that complaint.

During the PHC, District orally opposed the motion to amend. District’s primary objection was based on the prejudice to Student that would occur since the filing of an amended complaint will reset the timelines for a decision. District also expressed concern that witnesses would not be available during the summer, when the hearing on the amended complaint would most likely be scheduled.

Student responded that the new allegations raised were based on information that counsel for Student had not been aware of at the time Student filed her new complaint.

Student also does not believe she will be prejudiced by the short delay occasioned by the resetting of the timelines for the amended complaint.

An amended complaint may be filed when either (a) the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or (b) the hearing officer grants permission, provided the hearing officer may grant such permission at any time more than five (5) days prior to the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.

§1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)

Here, Student’s motion to amend is timely, as it was filed more than five business days prior to the scheduled hearing. Additionally, denying Student’s motion would result in having two hearings held concerning issues that occurred over the same period of time and which are related to District’s most recent individualized education program offer. Holding one hearing on these issues furthers the interests of judicial economy and avoids possible inconsistent rulings on issues that overlap as to time as well as to subject matter.

Student’s motion to amend is therefore granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: May 16, 2017

DARRELL LEPKOWSKY

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings