California OAH special education order · February 20, 2020
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration, Denying Motion to Extend Dismissal, and Setting Matter for Hearing
OAH Case No. 2019081052 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH reconsidered but again refused to extend automatic dismissal while a settlement awaited federal court approval of an exhaustion stipulation, citing IDEA's timeliness mandate, and set the case for hearing.
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
Student, joined by Turlock, asked OAH to reconsider its denial of a request to extend the automatic dismissal of the case. The parties said their settlement depended on both school board approval and federal court approval of a stipulation that the district would not raise exhaustion of remedies as a defense. OAH granted reconsideration but again denied the extension. It explained that the hearing dates had been vacated only pending board approval, that other OAH orders are not binding, and that holding IDEA claims in abeyance for an unknown future court date conflicts with federal law's emphasis on timely resolution. The case was put back on calendar for hearing on March 10 through 12, 2020.
Why it matters
OAH will not keep a case on hold indefinitely while settlement conditions play out in another forum. If a settlement depends on court approval, parties should give OAH a concrete date for it or expect the case to go to hearing.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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 GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION,
DENYING MOTION TO EXTEND DISMISSAL, AND SETTING
MATTER FOR HEARING
FEBRUARY 20, 2020
On February 18, 2020, the undersigned issued an order denying Student’s request to extend the automatic case dismissal. On February 19, 2020, Student filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the extension or schedule the matter for hearing.
On February 19, 2020, Turlock joined Student’s reconsideration request. Neither party asserted that Turlock’s school board had rejected or not approved the settlement.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider ruling on a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time, generally within ten days. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party may be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law.
(See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
DISCUSSION
The parties submitted additional information clarifying their respective positions and the request for reconsideration is GRANTED. As noted in the original order, on January 6, 2020, Student and Turlock submitted a joint request to vacate the then pending hearing dates. The parties represented that they had reached a final settlement agreement pending board approval. The board meeting was scheduled for January 21,
2020. The parties also noted that they would be filing, “a joint stipulation in federal
court asserting the District will not invoke exhaustion of remedies as an affirmative defense.” The parties’ request was granted to the board approval only.
The parties did not indicate that Turlock’s school board did not convene as anticipated or rejected the settlement. Accordingly, no basis to further extend the dismissal was established.
Student asserts that the request to vacate hearing dates was based on both conditions being met, namely both board approval and the federal court’s approval of the parties’ stipulation. Turlock agrees with Student’s position and asserted that OAH has granted similar relief in another matter where the parties’ settlement was contingent on the court’s approval of a minor’s compromise.
First, OAH orders are not binding authority in other matters. Second, in the case cited by Turlock, the parties provided the originally scheduled hearing date for the minor’s compromise. Here, the parties seek the court approve a stipulation regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies and have provided no indication of when the hearing may be scheduled or occur. Federal law places great emphasis on timely resolving IDEA claims. Placing those claims in abeyance for an unspecified future date is inconsistent with that mandate.
The parties’ joint request to extend the dismissal timeline is DENIED. The request to place this matter back on calendar for hearing is GRANTED. A prehearing conference has already been held and a second one will not be scheduled. This matter is continued until the due process hearing which will is set as follows:
March 10, through 12, 2020. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 on the first day and 9:00 AM on all subsequent days unless ordered otherwise. If not complete, the matter will continue day-to-day thereafter at the discretion of the ALJ.
Nothing in this order prevents the parties from seeking a continuance. They are on notice, however, that good cause for a continuance must be established.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joy Redmon Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings