California OAH special education order · February 18, 2020
Order Denying Request to Extend Dismissal
OAH Case No. 2019081052 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH denied Student's request to push back the settlement dismissal deadline with Turlock to April 27, 2020. A pending federal court stipulation on exhaustion is not a reason to keep the case open.
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 and Turlock had settled, pending school board approval, and OAH set the case against Turlock to be dismissed on February 21, 2020. Student asked to extend the dismissal deadline to April 27, 2020, because conditions of the settlement, including a federal court stipulation on exhaustion of remedies, were not yet complete. OAH denied the request. The prior order allowed delay only if the board did not consider the settlement, and no one said the board failed to meet or rejected the agreement. OAH also noted the case had been pending since August.
Why it matters
When OAH conditions a settlement dismissal on board approval, other unfinished settlement terms, such as federal court filings, will not keep the OAH case open. Parties should build those contingencies into the settlement itself rather than rely on OAH extensions.
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 REQUEST TO EXTEND DISMISSAL
FEBRUARY 18, 2020
On February 18, 2020, Student filed a request to extend the dismissal deadline to April 27, 2020, as to respondent Turlock Unified School District. Student asserts that, “the conditions subsequent to fully resolving the OAH matter with respect to Turlock Unified School District have not been completed at this time.”
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 as to the board approval only and the matter set to be dismissed on February 21, 2020. The order specified that, “if the settlement is not considered at the scheduled Board meeting, the parties are to promptly notify the Office of Administrative Hearings. Otherwise, the Office of Administrative Hearings will close the case and issue a notice of dismissal.” Whether or not the parties filed a stipulation in federal court as to exhaustion of administrative remedies does not serve as a basis for extending this case which has been pending since August.
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 has been established. Unless notified that one of the forgoing conditions was not met, the matter will be dismissed on February 21, 2020.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Joy Redmon Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings