California OAH special education order · September 16, 2019
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2019081052 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied Modesto City Schools' motion to dismiss Student's claims as time-barred because a statute of limitations challenge seeks a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
This case went to decision
Student v. Modesto City Schools et al.: Modesto City Schools wins dismissal of claims over refused in-home behavior services as barred by two-year statute of limitations. (2020)
Summary
Modesto City Schools moved to dismiss Student's due process complaint, arguing the claims against it fell outside the statute of limitations. Student did not oppose the motion but instead filed a motion to amend and a First Amended Complaint, which OAH addressed in a separate order. OAH explained that it dismisses only allegations facially outside its jurisdiction, such as civil rights or Section 504 claims, and that special education law has no summary judgment procedure. Because the motion asked for a ruling on the merits, OAH denied it and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
Districts generally cannot get statute of limitations defenses decided early through a motion to dismiss at OAH. Those defenses are usually decided at hearing on the evidence, so parents should be ready to prove their claims are timely there.
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.
TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MODESTO CITY
SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019081052
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
On August 27, 2019, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH. On September 6, 2019, Modesto City Schools filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the claims alleged against Modesto were outside of the applicable statute of limitations. Student did not file an opposition to the Motion, but instead filed a Motion to Amend the complaint and a First Amended Complaint on September 10, 2019. The motion to amend is addressed in a separate order.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction (e.g., civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, incorrect parties, etc.), special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure.
Here, the Motion is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. Accordingly, the motion is denied.
All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 16, 2019 Adrienne L. Krikorian Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings