California OAH special education order · April 27, 2018
Order Disclosing Student's Ex Parte Communication to Etiwanda School District and Notice of No Action
OAH Case No. 2018030111, 2018030816 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH treated Parent's sanctions motion as a forbidden ex parte communication because it was not served on District's attorney, disclosed it to District, and took no action on it.
Summary
Parent filed a motion asking OAH to sanction Etiwanda School District and its attorneys, but apparently did not send a copy to District's attorney. OAH ruled that the unserved motion was an ex parte communication, which California special education regulations prohibit while a due process case is pending. As the regulations require, the ALJ disclosed the motion to District and made it part of the record. OAH took no action on the motion because it was not served, and it reminded Parent that every document sent to OAH must be sent to District's counsel at the same time.
Why it matters
Parents who represent themselves must serve the other side with every motion they file. If they do not, OAH may treat the filing as an improper ex parte communication and refuse to rule on it, no matter how strong the request is.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3084, subd. (a)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3084, subds. (c)-(e)
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2018030111 v.
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT,
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2018030816 v. ORDER DISCLOSING STUDENT’S EX
PARTE COMMUNICATION TO
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
NOTICE OF NO ACTION
On April 13, 2018, the Office of Administrative Hearings received from Student’s parent a motion for sanctions against Etiwanda School District and its attorneys in the above referenced case. It does not appear that Parent provided District’s attorney with a copy of this motion.
The April 13, 2018 motion filed by Parent on behalf of Student is deemed an ex parte communication during the pendency of the proceedings in the above captioned case.
Ex parte communications are not permitted while a due process proceeding is pending. “[W]hile special education due process hearing proceedings are pending there shall be no communication, direct or indirect, regarding any issue in the proceeding, to a hearing officer from an employee or representative of a party or from an interested person unless the communication is made on the record at the hearing.” (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3084, subd. (a).) When an ex parte communication is received, the administrative law judge presiding over the matter must disclose the communication to all parties, make it part of the record, and allow the parties an opportunity to address the matter within 10 days of receipt of the notification of communication. (Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3084, subds. (c)-(e).)
Here, the ex parte communication was made to OAH with the expectation that the Administrative Law Judge assigned to hear this matter would read the document and intended to affect the conduct of the hearing. As such, it must be disclosed to all parties, and made a part of the record. This Notice therefore discloses the communication to District.
The April 13, 2018 motion shall be attached to this Notice and shall be made part of the record in this matter. The undersigned has taken no actions based upon the allegations contained in April 13, 2018 letter, and OAH shall take no action in response to the motion as Parent did not serve a copy of the motion on District’s attorney, other than to remind Parent that a copy of any document submitted to OAH must also be provided to District’s counsel at the same time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: April 27, 2018
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings