California OAH special education order · October 22, 2020
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020090678 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH denied Student's second motion to dismiss the District's complaint because it was untimely, with no good-cause declaration, and it sought a merits ruling on factual disputes that require an evidentiary hearing.
This case went to decision
Anaheim Elementary School District v. Student: Anaheim Elementary may assess a six-year-old in person without parental consent or conditions, but no physical exam without consent. (2020)
Summary
Anaheim Elementary filed a due process complaint naming Student. OAH had already denied one motion to dismiss filed by Parents. Parents then filed a second motion to dismiss after the prehearing conference without the good-cause declaration the prehearing order required. OAH denied the motion as untimely, and also because it sought a merits ruling on disputed facts, such as whether Parents failed to make Student available for assessments, which must be resolved at hearing.
Why it matters
OAH has no summary judgment procedure. A motion to dismiss succeeds only for claims facially outside OAH's jurisdiction, and late motions need a sworn good-cause declaration. Parents defending a district's assessment case should be ready to present evidence at hearing rather than rely on a motion to dismiss.
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:
ANAHEIM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020090678
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
OCTOBER 22, 2020
On September 21, 2020, Anaheim Elementary School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, a Request for Due Process Hearing, called a complaint, naming Student. On September 29, 2020, Parents on behalf of Student filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. OAH denied the motion to dismiss on September 30, 2020. OAH denied the motion to dismiss because the motion was not limited to matters facially outside OAH’s jurisdiction and factual disputes exist requiring an evidentiary hearing. The September 30, 2020 Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Complaint was served on Student by email and mail on September 30, 2020.
On October 19, 2020, OAH served Student by email an Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference dated October 19, 2020. The October 19, 2020 Order required that any motion that was not filed three business days before the prehearing conference shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause as to why the motion was not timely filed.
On October 20, 2020, Student filed another motion to dismiss the complaint. No declaration was filed in support of the motion establishing good cause as to why the motion was not filed three business days prior to the October 19, 2020 prehearing conference. Anaheim Elementary filed an opposition on October 21, 2020. Student filed an objection to the opposition on October 22, 2020. Anaheim Elementary filed a statement in response to Student’s objection the same day.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, or incorrect parties, special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure.
Student’s motion to dismiss is denied on two grounds. First, Student failed to comply with the October 19, 2020 Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference in establishing good cause by way of a declaration as to why the motion to dismiss was not filed three days prior to the October 19, 2020 prehearing conference. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is untimely and is denied on that basis.
Second, the motion to dismiss is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH’s jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. An evidentiary hearing is required to allow the parties to present evidence such as testimony and documents to resolve the factual disputes in this matter, specifically whether Parents failed to make Student available to Anaheim Elementary for assessments and impeded Anaheim Elementary’s ability to assess him. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied.
All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed. The hearing shall begin on October 27, 2020, at 9:30 AM. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using a webcam and Microsoft Teams. In the event Parent is unable to join the hearing by video, Parent may appear for the first day of hearing by audio by calling the following telephone number and entering the conference ID number:
Telephone: 1-916-245-8550 or 1-213-204-8273 Conference ID: 592 793 060# Any motions filed prior to the hearing shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause as to why the motion was not filed three business days prior to the October 19, 2020 prehearing conference and will addressed on the first day of the hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings