California OAH special education order · May 23, 2018

Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Opposition to Motion to Amend

OAH Case No. 2018010953 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi

OAH granted El Dorado County Charter SELPA's reconsideration request but still let Student add it as a respondent, because claiming it is not a proper party is no reason to deny an amendment.

Ruling Reconsideration

Summary

OAH let Student amend his complaint to add El Dorado County Charter SELPA as a respondent. El Dorado's opposition had been filed the same day but was not considered, so El Dorado asked OAH to reconsider. OAH granted reconsideration because the opposition had not been reviewed. On the merits, it denied the opposition, holding that El Dorado's claim that it is not responsible for Student's education is not a basis for denying a motion to amend.

Why it matters

An agency that says it is the wrong party cannot block an amended complaint on that ground. It must file a separate motion to be dismissed as a party, so parents can name agencies they believe are responsible and test that question later.

Key authority cited

  • Gov. Code, § 11521
  • Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
  • Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

Topics

reconsideration amended complaint charter selpa proper party multiple respondents

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. 2018010953 v. ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR

RECONSIDERATION AND DENYING

GILROY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO

SILICON VALLEY FLEX ACADEMY, AMEND

SANTA CLARA COUNTY OFFICE OF

EDUCATION, EL DORADO COUNTY

CHARTER SELPA, AND CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION.

On May 21, 2018, the undersigned administrative law judge issued an order granting, in part, Student’s motion to amend his complaint to include four additional respondents, including El Dorado County Charter SELPA.1 On May 21, 2018, El Dorado filed an opposition to Student’s motion to amend on the grounds that it is not a proper party. On May 22, 2018, El Dorado filed a motion for reconsideration of the order granting Student’s motion to amend.

APPLICABLE LAW

Reconsideration The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)

Student’s request to add K12, Incorporated as a party was denied given the May 17, 2018 Order granting on reconsideration K12’s motion to be dismissed a party, and the May 18, 2018 Order denying Student’s request for reconsideration of the order of dismissal.

Amended Complaints 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).)

DISCUSSION

El Dorado timely alleges new facts, circumstances, or law in support of the requested reconsideration as detailed in its opposition. This opposition was not received nor considered by the undersigned at the time of issuing the order granting Student’s motion to amend. Accordingly, El Dorado’s request for reconsideration is granted.

El Dorado maintains that it is not a proper party to this action as it is not the public agency responsible for providing Student with special education and related services and it has not been involved in any decision regarding Student’s education. However, El Dorado’s assertion that it is not a proper party is not a basis for denying a motion to amend a complaint.2 On reconsideration, Student’s motion to amend is granted in part.

ORDER

1. El Dorado County Charter SELPA’s Motion for Reconsideration is Granted.

2. On reconsideration, El Dorado County Charter SELPA’s opposition to

Student’s motion to amend is DENIED.

Nothing in this Order prevents any respondent from filing a motion to be dismissed as a party. As of the time of writing this Order, California Department of Education had filed a motion to dismiss on May 22, 2018, which will be addressed in a separate order.

3. All dates to remain on calendar.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: May 23, 2018

THERESA RAVANDI

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings