California OAH special education order · August 15, 2018
Order Denying Fruitvale's Motion to Extend Procedural Timelines
OAH Case No. 2018070377 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH refused to treat Student's prehearing conference statements as an amended complaint or reset the hearing timelines. Student never filed an amended complaint, and a timeline motion cannot be used to challenge the scope of issues.
This case went to decision
Student v. Fruitvale School District: Fruitvale School District failed to assess in four areas and must fund evaluations; claims for added services denied. (2018)
Summary
Fruitvale argued that Student's prehearing conference statement and amended prehearing conference statement added new issues and reached back further than the statute of limitations allowed. It asked OAH to treat them as an amended complaint and restart the procedural timelines. Student opposed, saying no amended complaint was filed, the original complaint gave notice of the issues, and delay would hurt Student because a new school year had begun without services. OAH denied the motion because Student did not file an amended complaint, and a motion to extend timelines is the wrong way to challenge the statute of limitations or the scope of issues in a prehearing conference statement.
Why it matters
Only an actual amended complaint, filed with the other side's written consent or the ALJ's permission, restarts IDEA hearing timelines. A district that thinks a prehearing statement goes beyond the complaint must raise that challenge another way, not by asking to reset the schedule.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
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. 2018070377 v. ORDER DENYING FRUITVALE’S
MOTION TO EXTEND PROCEDURAL
FRUITVALE SCHOOL DISTRICT. TIMELINES
On July 5, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Fruitvale School District.
On August 10, 2018, Fruitvale filed a Motion to Extend Procedural Timelines contending that Student’s prehearing conference statement, dated August 9, 2018, added additional issues and time beyond the statute of limitations than what was originally plead in the complaint. Because of this, Fruitvale requested that OAH treat the prehearing conference statement as an amended complaint and reset the procedural timelines accordingly.
On August 13, 2018, Student filed an amended prehearing conference statement, and on August 14, 2018, Fruitvale filed a Notice of Errata, making the same argument regarding the amended prehearing conference statement as the prehearing conference statement, and requesting to extend the procedural timelines. On August 15, 2018, Student opposed Fruitvale’s Motion to Extend Procedural Timelines, arguing that he did not file an amended complaint and that the original complaint put Fruitvale on notice of the issues and timeframes set forth in the prehearing conference statement and amended prehearing conference statement. Additionally, Student argued that resetting the timelines would prejudice Student because a new school year has started without a resolution in this case and without the educational services needed for Student.
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).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
Fruitvale’s request is denied. Student did not file an amended complaint in this matter. A motion to extend procedural timelines is an inappropriate vehicle for raising a challenge to the statute of limitations or scope of issues in Student’s prehearing conference statement and amended prehearing conference statement.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 15, 2018
CYNTHIA FRITZ
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings