California OAH special education order · June 21, 2019
Order Granting Motion to Compel Response to Complaint and Denying Request to Vacate Hearing Dates and Shift Costs
OAH Case No. 2019050361 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH ordered Pleasanton to file a response to Student's complaint, because its earlier prior written notice covered only some issues. OAH denied Student's requests to vacate the hearing dates and shift costs.
Summary
Student moved to compel Pleasanton to respond to her due process complaint, to vacate the hearing dates, and to shift the costs of the delay to Pleasanton. Pleasanton argued no response was needed because it had already served prior written notice on Student's earlier, dismissed complaint. OAH found that the prior written notice addressed only some of the current issues, so Pleasanton had to file a response by June 26, 2019. OAH denied the other requests: Student cited no authority for cost shifting where a district mistakenly believed it had complied, and the IDEA does not require delaying a hearing when a response is missing.
Why it matters
A district cannot rely on prior written notice from an earlier complaint unless it covers the same issues, and OAH will order a response. However, a missing response usually leads only to an order to respond before hearing, not cost shifting or a postponed hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(f)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.503
- Ed. Code § 56500.4
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. 2019050361 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL RESPONSE TO
PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT AND DENYING
DISTRICT. REQUEST TO VACATE HEARING
DATES AND SHIFT COSTS
On May 08, 2019, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a due process hearing request (complaint) naming Pleasanton Unified School District.
On June 14, 2019, Student filed a motion compel Pleasanton’s response to the complaint, to vacate the hearing dates, and to shift the costs of the delay to Pleasanton.
On June 14, 2019, Pleasanton filed an opposition on the ground that it served prior written notice to Student’s previously filed complaint and no further response is required.
On June 14, 2019, Student filed a response to the opposition. On June 17, 2019, Pleasanton filed a response to Student’s response.
APPLICABLE LAW
A local educational agency is required to file a response to a due process hearing request (complaint) within 10 days of receiving the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B).) The response shall specifically address the issues raised in the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(f).)
If the local educational agency has sent prior written notice to the parent, under California Education Code 56500.4 and Section 300.503 of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations, regarding the subject matter contained in the complaint it need not file an additional response. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B), (D).)
DISCUSSION
Student contends the hearing must not go forward as Pleasanton failed to file a response to her complaint. Pleasanton contends that it served prior written notice on Student regarding the subject matter of her complaint.
Pleasanton served prior written notice on April 29, 2019, regarding Student’s first amended complaint filed on March 17, 2019 and dismissed on May 7, 2019. Pleasanton’s prior written notice in that matter addresses only some of the same issues raised in Student’s complaint in this case. Pleasanton has not complied with the requirement to file a response specifically addressing the issues raised in Student’s complaint.
Student seeks remedies of cost shifting and a delay in hearing as a result. Student cited no authority for cost shifting in a case where a local educational agency mistakenly believed it complied with complaint response requirements. Moreover, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not require OAH to delay a hearing indefinitely when a response has not been filed with OAH. OAH regularly addresses such matters during prehearing conferences by ordering the local educational agency to file a response before the first day of hearing. Nothing more is required here.
Student’s motion to compel a response to her complaint is granted. All other requests for relief are denied.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion to compel a response to her complaint is granted.
2. Pleasanton shall file a response specifically addressing the issues raised in the
complaint no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 26, 2019, four business days prior to the first day of hearing.
3. The matter shall proceed for prehearing conference and hearing on the dates
previously scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: June 21, 2019
COLE DALTON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings