California OAH special education order · June 12, 2018
Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing
OAH Case No. 2018060135 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenged a manifestation determination, and District's factual disputes are for the hearing, not a pre-hearing ruling on the merits.
Summary
Student filed a complaint that included an appeal of District's manifestation determination and asked for expedited hearing dates. District moved to unexpedite the case and vacate the expedited dates, arguing that the facts did not support an expedited hearing. Student opposed and disputed District's version of the facts and law. OAH denied the motion: Student had raised an issue that requires an expedited hearing, factual and legal disputes must be decided on the evidence at hearing, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure. All dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
When a parent challenges a manifestation determination, the right to an expedited hearing is mandatory. A district cannot get the case unexpedited by arguing its side of the facts in a motion. A case can be unexpedited only if no expedited issue is alleged, the student withdraws that issue, or the student chooses the regular non-expedited process.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)
- Molina v. Bd. of Educ. of Los Lunas Schools (D.N.M. 2016) 157 F.Supp.3d 1064
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. 2018060135 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
UNEXPEDITE HEARING
TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On June 1, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) against District, stating an appeal of District’s alleged determination that expellable conduct occurring between February 26, 2018 and March 3, 2018 was not a manifestation of Student’s disability, and other issues, and requesting expedited and non-expedited hearing dates. The complaint described Student’s alleged conduct, the alleged determinations made by District at a manifestation determination meeting, and stated an appeal of those alleged determinations, in Issue # 3. On June 5, 2018, based on this issue asserted in the complaint, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued a Scheduling Order and Notice of Expedited and Non-Expedited Due Process Hearing.
On June 6, 2018, District filed a motion to unexpedite this matter and vacate the expedited dates, based on alleged facts stated in the motion papers, concerning Student’s conduct, the factual and legal grounds upon which District took certain actions with regard to his placement, and disputing its alleged intent to expel him. District argued that on the basis of the facts as stated in the motion, legal grounds for an expedited hearing did not exist.
On June 11, 2018, Student filed a response and declaration, disputing District’s version of the facts and the law pertaining to them.
APPLICABLE LAW
A parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision by a school district regarding a change in educational placement of the child based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, or who disagrees with a manifestation determination made by the district, may request and is entitled to receive an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).) An expedited due process hearing before OAH must occur within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing is filed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) .) The procedural right to an expedited due process hearing is mandatory and does not authorize OAH to make exceptions or grant continuances of expedited matters. (Ibid.) A matter can only be unexpedited or continued if no issue is alleged that is subject to an expedited hearing, if the student withdraws the issues in the complaint that triggered the expedited hearing, or if the student elects to challenge the change of placement under title 20, section 1415. Subdivision (b)(6)(A) and not subdivision (k). (Molina v. Bd. Of Educ. Of Los Lunas Schools (D.N.M.
2016) 157 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068-1071.)
DISCUSSION
An issue is alleged that is subject to an expedited hearing. Student specifically asked for an expedited hearing, and an expedited hearing was required because there was a challenge to a manifestation determination. If disputes exist, concerning the factual and legal underpinning to the allegations, that is for the ALJ to determine on the basis of the evidence at hearing. Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc.), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, the Motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of an expedited appeals process, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits.
Accordingly, the motion is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 12, 2018
JUNE LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings