California OAH special education order · April 6, 2020
Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020010042, 2019120777 · ALJ Chris Butchko
OAH let Bakersfield amend its complaint a second time over Student's objection, finding the motion timely and that one hearing on similar issues and witnesses serves judicial economy.
This case went to decision
Student v. Bakersfield City School District (consolidated): Bakersfield City must fund two IEEs and compensatory tutoring, counseling and social skills for a kindergartner; mental health assessment upheld. (2020)
Summary
In these consolidated cases, Bakersfield moved to amend its due process complaint again to add an issue arising from a later IEP team meeting. Student opposed and argued Bakersfield should file a separate case instead. OAH granted the motion because it was filed more than five days before hearing, and because hearing substantially similar issues with overlapping witnesses in one case promotes judicial economy. All timelines were reset, Bakersfield's case became the primary case, and OAH warned that any further amendment requests from either side must show extraordinary good cause.
Why it matters
OAH will usually allow amendments to add issues from later IEP meetings rather than require a new filing, but each amendment resets the hearing timelines. After two rounds of amendments, a party may face a much higher 'extraordinary good cause' standard to amend again.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020010042
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019120777
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
APRIL 6, 2020
On December 18, 2019, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Bakersfield City School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. Bakersfield filed a complaint against Student on December 31, 2019, and moved to consolidate with Student’s action on that same day. OAH consolidated the two matters on January 8, 2020. Student filed motions to amend his complaint on February 3, 2020, and on February 11, 2020, and was granted leave to amend by OAH both times. Bakersfield moved to amend its complaint on February 10, 2020, and OAH granted leave to amend on February 11 2020.
On March 18, 2010, Bakersfield again filed a Motion to Amend its Due Process Hearing Request and an amended complaint. Student filed in opposition on March 20,
2020. On April 1, 2020, OAH issued an order continuing all non-expedited actions
scheduled through April 17, 2020, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and advising the parties that the order continuing all actions may be further extended.
An amended complaint may be filed when the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or when the hearing officer grants permission. The hearing officer may grant permission at any time more than five days before the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing. Therefore, it is timely and is granted. Student’s opposition argues that Bakersfield should file a separate action, rather than amend its complaint to add an issue that arose from a later individualized education plan team meeting than the one at issue in the other actions. Allowing the complaint to be amended furthers judicial economy by allowing a substantially similar set of issues, involving a number of the same witnesses, to be heard in one action. Given that both parties will have amended their complaints twice, however, any further requests to amend will need to demonstrate extraordinary good cause.
The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates. Bakersfield’s case, OAH Case Number 2020010042, is now the primary case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Chris Butchko Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings