California OAH special education order · August 16, 2018
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel District's Response to Due Process Complaint and Accompanying Motion for Payment of Costs Due to Delay
OAH Case No. 2018070084 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Student's motion to compel Compton's late complaint response as moot and refused to award nonpublic school costs, because Student showed no hearing delay caused by the late filing.
Summary
Student moved to compel Compton to respond to her due process complaint. She also asked OAH to order Compton to pay costs, including prospective nonpublic school placement costs, because of the delay its late response caused. Compton filed its response the day after the motion, which made the request to compel moot. OAH denied the cost request because Student did not show that the late response delayed the due process hearing, so there was no legal or factual basis for an award.
Why it matters
A district's late response to a due process complaint does not by itself support an award of costs. A parent seeking cost-shifting must show actual harm, such as a delay to the hearing, caused by the late filing.
People named in the order
- Ted Mann, Administrative Law Judge
- Deanna Sweeney, Attorney for Student
- Lisa Dennis, Attorney for Compton Unified School District
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. 2018070084 v.
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
COMPTON UNIFIED SCHOOL MOTION TO COMPEL DISTRICT’S
DISTRICT. RESPONSE TO DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT AND ACCOMPANYING
MOTION FOR PAYMENT OF COSTS
DUE TO DELAY
On August 7, 2018, Student served and filed a Motion to compel Compton Unified School District’s response to Student’s due process complaint and Student’s accompanying Motion for payment of costs due to delay, including prospective costs for Student’s non- public school placement. On August 8, 2018, Compton filed and served an Opposition to Student’s Motions. On August 8, 2018, Compton also filed and served a response to Student’s due process complaint. On August 9, 2018, Student filed and served a Reply to District’s Opposition.
On August 13, 2018, a telephonic prehearing conference was held before Administrative Law Judge Ted Mann, Office of Administrative Hearings. Deanna Sweeney, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Lisa Dennis, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Compton. Student’s Motions were argued on the record.
In her motion, Student seeks to compel Compton to file a response to Student’s due process complaint. Student’s request is moot as Compton filed a response to Student’s due process complaint on August 8, 2018. Student also seeks payment of prospective costs for Student’s non-public school placement for the delay occasioned by Compton’s late filing of its response. Student has failed to establish any delay to the due process hearing in this matter arising from Compton’s late filing, and as such there is no basis in law or fact to support such an award of costs as requested by Student.
Based upon the filings and oral argument in this case, the ALJ issues the following order:
Student’s Motion to compel Compton’s response to Student’s due process complaint and Student’s accompanying Motion for payment of costs due to delay, including prospective costs for Student’s non-public school placement, are denied.
DATE: August 16, 2018
TED MANN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings