California OAH special education order · April 5, 2019

Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Request to Amend Hearing Dates

OAH Case No. 2018081089 · ALJ Ted Mann

OAH let Student amend the complaint over Long Beach's objection and ruled the claims relate back to the original filing date for statute-of-limitations purposes, but denied Student's proposed hearing dates.

Granted in part Amending the complaint

This case went to decision

Student v. Long Beach Unified School District: Long Beach Unified denied an autistic second grader a FAPE by refusing behavior services and goals; 152 compensatory hours ordered. (2019)

Summary

Student asked to amend the due process complaint, to have the amended complaint relate back to the original August 2018 filing date, and to set hearing for May 21-23, 2019. Long Beach opposed relation back as contrary to the IDEA's two-year statute of limitations and opposed the proposed dates. OAH granted the amendment and held it relates back because it rests on the same general facts about Student's ongoing assessment, behavior, and behavioral support issues. Because an amended complaint restarts all timelines, the request for specific hearing dates was premature and was denied without prejudice, and OAH will issue a new scheduling order.

Why it matters

Parents can add claims through an amended complaint without losing older claims to the two-year statute of limitations, as long as the amendment rests on the same general facts as the original complaint. Amending restarts all hearing timelines, so families should expect new resolution and hearing dates.

Key authority cited

20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)
Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596
Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d 575
Lamont v. Wolfe (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 375
34 C.F.R. § 300.515
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332

Topics

amended complaint relation back statute of limitations hearing dates behavior

Order details

OAH case number: 2018081089
Order date: April 5, 2019
Order type: Amending the complaint
Ruling: Granted in part
Administrative law judge: Ted Mann
Moving party: Student
Case filed by: Student
Education agency: Long Beach Unified School District
Student's counsel: Not stated
District's counsel: Not stated
Official order: OAH PDF

Orders in this case

January 9, 2019: Second joint continuance granted; hearing reset to April 30, 2019; no further continuances allowed. (PDF)
April 5, 2019: Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Request to Amend Hearing Dates
April 24, 2019: Order Granting Student's Motion to Compel School and Staff Access for Student's Expert's Functional
May 20, 2019: District continuance granted; hearing reset to July 30, 2019, and prehearing conference to July 19, 2019. (PDF)
July 22, 2019: Prehearing order set hearing for July 30–August 1, 2019, defined seven issues, and allowed audio recording. (PDF)
August 2, 2019: Added due process hearing day on August 9, 2019, at Tucker School, Long Beach. (PDF)
August 23, 2019: Joint request granted; written closing briefs now due September 9, 2019 at 5:00 p.m. (PDF)
Decision (2019-09-27)

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. 2018081089 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

AMEND COMPLAINTAND DENYING

LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL REQUEST TO AMEND HEARING

DISTRICT. DATES

On August 27, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Long Beach Unified School District. On March 28, 2019, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request (amended complaint), seeking to: amend the prior complaint; allow the amended complaint to relate back to the original filing date; and set the matter for hearing on May 21, 22, and 23,

2019. Long Beach filed an opposition on April 3, 2019, arguing against any relation back as

contrary to the two-year statute of limitations applicable to cases under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and opposing the new hearing dates proposed by Student.

Student filed a reply on April 4, 2019.

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).) Here, Student’s request to amend the complaint was timely filed.

If an amendment is sought after the statute of limitations has run, the amended complaint will be deemed filed as of the date of the original complaint provided recovery is sought in both pleadings on the same general set of facts. Austin v. Massachusetts Bonding & Insurance Co. (1961) 56 Cal.2d 596, 600; Grudt v. City of Los Angeles (1970) 2 Cal.3d

5755. Cases applying this relation back rule have made it clear that “it is the sameness of the

facts rather than the rights or obligations arising from those facts that is determinative.

[Citation.]” Lamont v. Wolfe (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 375, 378. Here, Student’s amended complaint is based upon the same general set of facts related to Student’s ongoing issues with assessment, behavior, and behavioral support, and as such, relates back to the original filing date in keeping with the authority cited above.

A due process hearing must be conducted and a decision rendered within 45 days of receipt of the due process notice unless an extension is granted for good cause. (34 C.F.R. § 300.515(a) & (c) (2006); Ed. Code, §§ 56502, subd. (f), 56505, subd. (f)(3); Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1020.) As a result, continuances are disfavored. Good cause may include the unavailability of a party, counsel, or an essential witness due to death, illness or other excusable circumstances; substitution of an attorney when the substitution is required in the interests of justice; a party’s excused inability to obtain essential testimony or other material evidence despite diligent efforts; or another significant, unanticipated change in the status of the case as a result of which the case is not ready for hearing. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(c).) OAH considers all relevant facts and circumstances, including the proximity of the hearing date; previous continuances or delays; the length of continuance requested; the availability of other means to address the problem giving rise to the request; prejudice to a party or witness as a result of a continuance; the impact of granting a continuance on other pending hearings; whether trial counsel is engaged in another trial; whether the parties have stipulated to a continuance; whether the interests of justice are served by the continuance;

and any other relevant fact or circumstance. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1332(d).)

Here, Student’s amended complaint restarts the dates and requires a new scheduling order which allows for a resolution session, and resets all dates. Student’s request to set the hearing of the amended due process case for May 21-23, 2019 was effectively a request to continue dates contained in a Scheduling Order that has not issued. As such, Student’s request to continue the dates of the hearing is denied without prejudice.

The motion to amend is timely and is granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates in keeping with its standard practice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: April 05, 2019

TED MANN

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings