California OAH special education order · August 24, 2017

Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint Without Prejudice

OAH Case No. 2017040667 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH denied Student's last-minute motion to amend because the proposed complaint only reorganized existing issues and appeared to be a disguised request for a continuance.

Denied without prejudice Amending the complaint

This case went to decision

Student v. Irvine Unified School District: Irvine Unified must reimburse private school, occupational therapy, and mileage after building an IEP on year-old data; assessment claim denied. (2018)

Summary

Less than two weeks before the hearing, Student moved to amend the due process complaint. District did not respond. OAH denied the motion without prejudice. The proposed amendment only reorganized issues about the April 10, 2017 IEP, and OAH found it looked like an attempt to delay the hearing, since Student's attorney had two other hearings the following week and had previously been admonished for the same tactic. Hearing dates stayed in place, and Student may refile with a redline of changes and a counsel declaration explaining the delay.

Why it matters

OAH will look past the label on a late motion to amend: if it mainly restarts the timelines rather than adding real new claims, it may be denied as a disguised continuance request. Parties seeking to amend should show what changed and why it could not be filed sooner.

Key authority cited

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

Topics

amended complaint late amendment disguised continuance hearing timelines attorney conduct

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. 2017040667 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINT WITHOUT

IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. PREJUDICE

On April 12, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Irvine Unified School District. On August 24, 2017, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request (amended complaint). No response was received from District. Pursuant to the May 23, 2017 continuance order, the prehearing conference in this matter is scheduled for 10:00 a.m., on August 28, 2017, and hearing on September 6 and 7, 2017.

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).)

The motion to amend the complaint is denied as Student’s proposed amended complaint merely reorganizes the issues as to the April 10, 2017 individualized educational program and events leading up to that IEP team meeting. Student’s motion appears to be an attempt to seek a continuance in this matter, especially as Student’s attorney is scheduled for two hearings the week after this matter is scheduled for hearing in OAH Case Nos. 2017060656 and 2017010036. Further, Student’s counsel has been previously admonished for filing an amended complaint that was more designed as a continuance request. (OAH Case No. 2017050484, July 13, 2017 Order Vacating Order to Show Cause.)

Therefore, the motion to amend is denied without prejudice. All previously set dates shall remain on calendar, except that the prehearing conference shall now be at 3:00 p.m. on August 28, 2017. Student may refile the amended complaint, which shall include notations as to changes in the amended complaint from the original complaint and a declaration from Student’s counsel why the amended complaint was not filed sooner as three months have elapsed since OAH granted the parties’ continuance request.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: August 24, 2017

PETER PAUL CASTILLO

Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings