California OAH special education order · December 10, 2019
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2019080673 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH denied Long Beach's motion to dismiss Student's claims from September 2018 onward, because the District's argument that Parent never consented to services went to the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment.
This case went to decision
Student v. Long Beach Unified School District: Long Beach Unified must provide 131 compensatory hours and new assessments for failing to implement an IEP; other claims denied. (2020)
Summary
Long Beach Unified School District asked OAH to dismiss Student's issues and remedies covering September 2018 to the present. It argued that Parent never consented to special education eligibility or services. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion because it did not target claims plainly outside OAH's jurisdiction but instead sought a ruling on the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure; all existing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Districts cannot use a motion to dismiss to win fact-based defenses, such as lack of parental consent, before hearing. Those arguments must be proven at the due process hearing.
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,
v.
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019080673
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
On December 4, 2019, Long Beach Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH. On December 9, 2019, Student filed an opposition.
Long Beach moves to dismiss Student’s “issues and remedies that relate to the time period of September 2018 to the present as Petitioner has NEVER provided consent to special education eligibility or services.” (Emphasis in original.)
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as, civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, or incorrect parties, special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, the motion to dismiss is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 10, 2019 Kara Hatfield Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings