California OAH special education order · June 22, 2020
Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020020631 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH denied Student's eve-of-hearing motion to amend because it missed prehearing motion deadlines without a good-cause declaration, and a late amendment would prejudice Fremont after extensive subpoena litigation.
This case went to decision
Student v. Fremont Unified School District: Fremont Unified prevails on all 17 claims by an adult student with anxiety over home instruction and IEP meetings. (2020)
Summary
Student filed an amended complaint, treated as a motion to amend, on June 19, 2020, four days before the June 23 hearing. Fremont filed no opposition. OAH denied the motion because it violated earlier orders requiring prehearing motions to be filed three business days before the prehearing conference, and it lacked a declaration under penalty of perjury showing good cause for the delay. OAH also found that, even if the motion were timely, amending at that late date would prejudice Fremont after extensive subpoena litigation, while Student would not be harmed because the new claims can be brought in a separate case.
Why it matters
Under 20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(i), an ALJ may allow an amendment any time more than five days before hearing, but this is discretionary, not a right. Families should file amendments early, follow prehearing motion deadlines, and attach a good-cause declaration when a motion is late.
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 MATTER OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
FREMONT UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020020631
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
JUNE 22, 2020
On February 18, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Fremont Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
A prehearing conference was held on June 15, 2020. All then pending motions were heard and resolved or reserved for further action at that time as stated in the prehearing conference order. The hearing is set for June 23, 2020.
Student filed an Amended Due Process Hearing Request, which OAH considers a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request and an amended complaint after close of business on June 18, 2020. Motions received after the close of business are deemed filed the next day. Accordingly, the Motion to Amend was filed on June 19,
2020. No opposition was received from Fremont.
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 parties argued a number of then pending motions during the PHC on June 15, 2020. The order states that any motion not filed three days before the prehearing conference must be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed. The motion to amend was not supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not filed three business days before the prehearing conference.
The statute gives the hearing officer discretion to grant permission to file an amended complaint any time “more than five days before” the hearing. The statute does not give a party a right to file an amended complaint if the party files it five days before the hearing.
Here, a prehearing conference was held on May 8, 2020. OAH granted Student’s request for a continuance at the prehearing conference to allow time for Student to file an amended complaint. The May 8, 2020 Order set the prehearing conference on June 8, 2020 and required all prehearing motions to be filed three business days before the prehearing conference.
Student’s motion to amend did not comply with the May 8, 2020 Order and did not comply with the June 17, 2020 Order. The parties have engaged in extensive time consuming and expensive litigation over a number of subpoenas for testimony and supboenas duces tecum, in preparation for the hearing beginning June 23, 2020. Even if Student’s motion were timely, granting Student’s motion to amend at this late date would be prejudicial to Fremont and not in the interests of justice or judicial economy.
Denying the motion to amend is not prejudicial to Student as there is no requirement that Student must bring all claims in the same action. Therefore, the motion to amend is denied. All dates shall remain on calendar.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cole Dalton Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings