California OAH special education order · June 14, 2018
Order Granting District's Request for Official Notice
OAH Case No. 2018051156 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH took official notice of a prior OAH decision on District's 2017 assessments, but only for evaluating collateral estoppel, and ordered District to file a written motion defining the preclusive effect it seeks.
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
District asked OAH to take official notice of a January 22, 2018 OAH decision in an earlier case, apparently to stop Student from re-litigating the appropriateness, timeliness, and scope of District's 2017 assessments. Student did not respond. OAH ruled that Government Code section 11515 does not apply to special education due process hearings. It took official notice of the prior decision under Evidence Code section 451, subdivision (a), but only for the limited purpose of evaluating a collateral estoppel request. If District wants a ruling on issue preclusion, it must file a written motion spelling out exactly what preclusive effect it seeks.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a simple request for official notice to keep a parent from raising issues decided in an earlier case. It must bring a specific motion defining what is precluded, which gives the family a chance to respond.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code § 11515
- Evid. Code § 451, subd. (a)
- Evid. Code § 452, subds. (c), (d)
- Gov. Code § 11500 et seq.
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:
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2018051156 v. ORDER GRANTING DISTRICT’S
REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL NOTICE
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On May 25, 2018, District filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, naming Student.
On June 6, 2018, District filed a Request for Official Notice, of the January 22, 2018 decision in OAH Case No. 2017040667. Student did not file a response.
District based its Request for Official Notice on Government Code section 11515 and Evidence Code sections 451, subdivision (a), and 452, subdivisions (c) and (d). Due process hearings authorized by the California Department of Education are not conducted pursuant the Government Code section 11500 et seq., and section 11515 is not applicable to the cases OAH hears under the Education Code and related California Code of Regulations provisions.
District’s Request for Official Notice indicates, without specifically stating the concept by name, that District seeks to avoid re-litigating the question of the appropriateness of District’s 2017 assessments of Student and to collaterally estop Student from challenging the timeliness or if Student was assessed in all areas of suspected disability. For the limited purpose of evaluating a request for collateral estoppel, OAH will take official notice of the January 22, 2018 decision in OAH Case No. 2017040667 pursuant to Evidence Code section 451, subdivision (a).
If District seeks a determination regarding collateral estoppel/issue preclusion, District is ordered to file and serve a written motion specifying the precise contours of the preclusive effect District seeks from the January 22, 2018 decision in OAH Case No. 2017040667.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 14, 2018
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings