California OAH special education order · June 12, 2018
Order Denying Cross-Motions for Sanctions
OAH Case No. 2018050981 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied both Student's and District's cross-motions for sanctions because neither side showed bad faith or frivolous tactics, even though the filings were unnecessarily litigious.
Summary
After Student's complaint was dismissed as outside OAH's jurisdiction, the only remaining dispute was cross-motions for sanctions. Student sought sanctions because District filed an unauthorized reply brief and an untimely Notice of Insufficiency. District sought sanctions because the complaint was outside OAH's jurisdiction, forcing it to file a Motion to Dismiss, and because Student's sanctions requests were themselves sanctionable. The ALJ denied both motions, finding the filings at worst unnecessarily litigious, with no evidence of bad faith, frivolous tactics, or intent to cause delay.
Why it matters
Sanctions at OAH require bad faith or frivolous or delaying tactics, not just extra or aggressive filings. Parents and districts should not expect expense-shifting simply because the other side filed an unneeded or untimely paper, or because a complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Key authority cited
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3088
- Gov. Code, § 11455.30
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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2018050981 v. ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS
FOR SANCTIONS
LAMMERSVILLE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 21, 2018, Student filed a Request for Due Process hearing (complaint). On May 30, 2018, District filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On June 4, 2018, Student opposed the Motion to Dismiss. On June 6, 2018, District filed a reply to the opposition, and also filed an untimely Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
On June 7, 2018, Student objected to District’s having filed a reply regarding the Motion to Dismiss. On June 7, 2018, Student also opposed the NOI, and requested sanctions arguing that District’s filings were frivolous.
On June 8, 2018, Student filed a different version of its objection to District’s reply brief and its opposition to the NOI. On June 8, 2018, Student also filed a different version of its motion for sanctions against District. On June 8, 2018, District opposed, and filed its own motion for sanctions against Student.
On June 11, 2018, OAH denied District’s NOI .
On June 12, 2018, OAH granted District’s Motion to Dismiss and issued an order of dismissal of Student’s entire complaint, as stating claims that were outside OAH jurisdiction.
On June 12, 2018, Student opposed District’s request for sanctions.
As discussed below, both parties’ requests for sanctions are denied.
APPLICABLE LAW AND DISCUSSION
An Administrative Law Judge is authorized to issue sanctions to shift the expenses to a party acting in bad faith, or using tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay to the other party and/or their attorneys. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3088, incorporating Gov. Code, § 11455.30.)
Both sides want sanctions because each claims they had to prepare unnecessary filings. Student’s requests for sanctions argue that: (1) District’s reply to Student’s opposition to District Motion to Dismiss was an unauthorized filing, and (2) District’s NOI was untimely. District’s request for sanctions argues that: (1) the complaint was outside OAH jurisdiction, necessitating legal fees in filing the Motion to Dismiss; and (2) Student’s requests for sanctions were themselves sanctionable.
Here, the sole remaining dispute in this action, which has now been dismissed, is the parties’ cross-motions for sanctions. Neither party has established bad faith, or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. At worst, the filings at issue were unnecessarily litigious, but there is no evidence of bad faith tactics or intent.
Accordingly, both motions are denied.
ORDER
The requests for sanctions filed by District and Student are denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 12, 2018
JUNE LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings