California OAH special education order · October 8, 2020
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2020090447 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH denied Long Beach Unified's motion to dismiss Student's complaint against Clear Passage Educational Center because Long Beach was not a named party and so had no standing to seek dismissal.
This case went to decision
Student v. Clear Passage Educational Center: Clear Passage Educational Center, a charter school, owed Student no FAPE because Long Beach Unified was responsible; all claims denied. (2021)
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint naming only Clear Passage Educational Center, which did not respond. Long Beach Unified School District filed a notice of representation as the local educational agency and moved to dismiss, arguing that a settlement agreement with Student resolved all claims. Student opposed. OAH denied the motion because Long Beach was not a party to the case and had no standing to request dismissal, and the matter will proceed as scheduled.
Why it matters
Only a named party can move to dismiss a due process case, so a district that settled with a family cannot end a separate complaint against another entity unless it is actually a party. Families should name the right respondents, and districts that want to be heard must formally become parties.
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.
CLEAR PASSAGE EDUCATIONAL CENTER.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020090447
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
OCTOBER 8, 2020
On September 11, 2020, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Clear Passage Educational Center. The Office or Administrative Hearings is referred to as
OAH.
On September 24, 2020, Long Beach Unified School District filed a notice of representation as the local educational agency. However, Long Beach is not a named party in the complaint. Clear Passage Educational Center failed to respond to Student’s complaint.
On October 2, 2020, Long Beach filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint based on a settlement agreement that resolved all claims in the complaint between it and Student. On October 7, 2020 Student filed an opposition to non-party Long Beach’s motion to dismiss and Long Beach filed a response on the same date.
DISCUSSION
Long Beach sought dismissal based on the existence of a settlement agreement.
However, Long Beach has no standing to request dismissal because it is not a party to this action. Based on the foregoing, Long Beach’s request for dismissal is denied.
ORDER
Long Beach Unified School District’s Motion to Dismiss is denied. The matter shall proceed as scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings