California OAH special education order · September 11, 2018
Order Denying Student's Motion to File a Third Amended Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018031003, 2018060667 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH denied Student's third request to amend her complaint. The six-month-old case already alleged failure to implement, OAH cannot enforce a federal court stay put order, and the proposed new party was not shown to be responsible.
This case went to decision
Student v. Springs Charter Schools, also known as River Springs Charter School (consolidated): River Springs Charter must provide 128 hours of compensatory instruction, but its offer of placement at Flabob Academy is upheld as FAPE. (2019)
Summary
Student asked to file a third amended complaint in this consolidated case. She wanted to add ongoing failure-to-implement claims, Charter's alleged violation of a federal district court order naming the Prentice School as stay put, Charter's pending Ninth Circuit appeal of that order, and the Riverside County Office of Education as a party. OAH denied the motion and noted it had already warned that no further amendments would be allowed. It found that failure to implement was already alleged and new instances could be raised in a new complaint, that OAH has no authority to enforce the district court's order, that the stay put appeal is separate from the FAPE issues, and that Student's own complaints identify Charter, not County, as her local educational agency. Student remains free to file a new due process request on issues not already alleged.
Why it matters
OAH will not keep reopening an older case each time a new violation comes up; new claims usually belong in a separate complaint. If a district ignores a federal court stay put order, the remedy is in that court, not at OAH.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(o)
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2018031003 v.
SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOLS AKA
RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL,
SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOLS AKA OAH Case No. 2018060667
RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL,
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
v. MOTION TO FILE A THIRD AMENDED
COMPLAINT
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 29, 2018, the Office of Administrative Hearings granted Student’s motion to file a second amended request for due process hearing, which named Springs Charter Schools, AKA River Springs Charter School. OAH informed Student that it would not grant any further amendments in this case. On June 21, 2018, OAH granted Charter’s motion to consolidate its case with that of Student. OAH granted Charter’s unopposed motion to continue this matter on July 3, 2018.
On September 11, 2018, Student filed a third motion to amend her complaint, along with a proposed third amended complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
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).) Leave to amend is thus discretionary with the hearing officer.
Student seeks to amend her complaint for a variety of reasons. First, argues that Charter failed to implement Student’s individualized education plan up to the present date.
First, Student already alleged failure to implement in each of her previous complaints.
Second, to the extent that Student believes she is raising new categories of instances of Charter’s failure to implement her educational program, Student may file a new complaint.
This case is already over six months old. Granting leave to amend each time Student discovers another possible due process violation could extend this due process proceeding indefinitely.
Student contends amendment is warranted because Charter allegedly violated a May 18, 2018 order from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in which the court overturned OAH’s order denying Student stay put at the Prentice School. In its order, the district court found Prentice to be Student’s stay put. OAH does not have authority to enforce the district’s court’s order. If Charter is in violation of that order, Student’s remedy lies with the district court, not with OAH.
Student also seeks leave to amend her complaint because Charter appealed the district court’s stay put order, and the appeal is pending with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Student fails to persuasively argue that amendment is warranted based on the pending appeal.
The issues on appeal are distinct from the issues raised in Student’s second amended complaint, to wit, whether Charter procedurally and substantively denied her a free appropriate public education during the applicable time frame, and can be filed as a separate hearing request. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(o).) Whether Prentice is or is not Student’s stay put (and, as of now the district court’s order is in force, which finds Prentice to be stay put) is not dispositive of the FAPE violations alleged in her complaint. In any case, it is doubtful whether Charter’s appeal would resolve prior to a scheduled hearing on Student’s proposed third amended complaint, which underscores the faulty reasoning Student raises as support for amending her complaint solely due to a pending appeal of a stay put order.
Finally, Student seeks to amend her complaint by adding the Riverside County Office of Education as a necessary party to the case. Student states that County is the Special Education Local Plan Area which authorized Charter to operate. She also contends that there is a memorandum of understanding between County and Charter in which County assumed oversight duties with respect to Charter’s compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Student did not include a copy of the memorandum of understanding with her motion to amend. However, the presence or absence of such a contract is not relevant to the instant case. Student does not state that County is the local educational agency responsible for Student’s education. To the contrary, each of her complaints states that Charter is its own local educational agency and responsible for providing Student with an education. Student therefore provides no persuasive reason for permitting amendment of her complaint six months after she filed her original complaint, based upon an agreement between County and Charter.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion to file a third amended complaint is denied.
2. Nothing in this order is to be construed as preventing Student from filing a
new request for due process hearing raising issues not previously alleged in her pending second amended complaint.
DATE: September 11, 2018
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings