California OAH special education order · June 23, 2020
Order Granting Request to Reopen Case as to Antelope Valley Union High School District
OAH Case No. 2019110305 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH reopened Student's case against Antelope Valley and set aside the dismissal. Student's attorney had failed to report repeated delays in the board's vote on the settlement, and the dismissal would have unfairly harmed Student.
Summary
OAH dismissed Student's case against Antelope Valley on June 22, 2020 because no one told OAH that the district's governing board had not voted on the settlement as scheduled. Student asked to reopen the case. Student explained that the board had delayed its vote several times, now to July 23, 2020, and that failing to tell OAH was an oversight. OAH granted the request because dismissal would cost Student over seven months of claims under the two-year statute of limitations, let witness memories fade, risk losing the benefit of the settlement, and waste resources on refiling. The case will now be dismissed as to Antelope Valley 30 days after the July 23, 2020 board meeting unless the parties tell OAH the settlement was not considered.
Why it matters
When a settlement depends on board approval, families must promptly tell OAH if the board vote is delayed, or the case may be automatically dismissed. OAH may undo a dismissal caused by an attorney's oversight when the loss of claims and the settlement's benefit would seriously harm the student.
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.
WILLIAM S. HART UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110305
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO REOPEN CASE AS TO
ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
JUNE 23, 2020
On May 18, 2020, Student filed with OAH a request to vacate hearing dates as to Antelope Valley Union High School District because Student and Antelope Valley had executed a settlement agreement subject to board approval. The request included a fully executed signature page, and informed OAH that the settlement agreement was scheduled to considered for approval by the governing board of Antelope Valley on May 21, 2020.
On May 15, 2020, OAH issued an order vacating the dates in this matter as to Antelope Valley, and informing the parties that the matter would be dismissed as to Antelope Valley 30 days after the scheduled board meeting. The order instructed the parties to promptly notify OAH if the settlement was not considered by the governing board as scheduled, or the case would be closed and a dismissal issued. Neither party contacted OAH, and on June 22, 2020, OAH closed this case and issued a notice of dismissal as to Antelope Valley.
On June 22, 2020, Student filed a request to reopen the case because the governing board of Antelope Valley had delayed consideration of the settlement between Student and Antelope Valley for approval until July 23, 2020.
Student’s request states that the governing board of Antelope Valley has delayed consideration of the settlement agreement multiple times, and is now scheduled to consider the settlement agreement for approval on July 23, 2020. However, Student did not notify OAH of the delays, resulting in the dismissal of Antelope Valley. Student contends that the failure to notify OAH of the delays in the board’s consideration of the settlement agreement was an oversight, and requests that OAH reopen the case as to Antelope Valley and rescind the dismissal order.
Here, a dismissal due to attorney negligence would resulted in substantial prejudice to Student. Student’s case was filed on November 8, 2019, and a refiled case against Antelope Valley would result in a loss of over seven months of claims within the 2-year statute of limitations. The memories of witnesses will have faded, adversely impacting Student’s ability to meet the burden of proof. If Antelope Valley chose not to proceed with the terms of the settlement agreement, Student would lose the benefit of the bargain made, and Antelope Valley would reap an unintended benefit from delay in approval of the agreement reached. Multiple filings on the same matter also impact scarce judicial resources and do not promote judicial economy.
Accordingly, the June 22, 2020 order of dismissal of Antelope Valley will be set aside. In light of the pending settlement between Student and Antelope Valley, no new hearing dates will be scheduled. This matter will be dismissed as to Antelope Valley 30 days after the scheduled board meeting of July 23, 2020. If the settlement is not considered at the scheduled board meeting, the parties are to promptly notify OAH.
Otherwise, OAH will close the case and issue a notice of dismissal as to Antelope Valley.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings