California OAH special education order · June 1, 2021
Order Denying Conejo Valley's Motion to Dismiss Student's Issues 6, 7, and 8
OAH Case No. 2021020362, 2021030817 · ALJ Kara Hatfield
OAH denied Conejo Valley's motion to dismiss Student's Issues 6, 7, and 8 because the motion sought a merits ruling requiring factual findings, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
This case went to decision
Student v. Conejo Valley Unified School District (consolidated): Conejo Valley Unified prevails on all claims; its psychoeducational assessment is upheld and no IEE is owed. (2021)
Summary
Conejo Valley moved to dismiss what Student originally numbered Issue 3. At the prehearing conference, that issue was split into Issues 6, 7, and 8, and Student opposed the motion. OAH denied the motion because it was not limited to claims facially outside OAH's jurisdiction but instead asked for a ruling on the merits that requires findings of fact or mixed fact and law. Conejo Valley may still raise its arguments as a defense at hearing, and Student may argue that the defense fails because Conejo Valley did not assert it in its February 22, 2021 response to the complaint.
Why it matters
Districts generally cannot use a motion to dismiss to get early merits rulings at OAH, since only claims facially outside OAH jurisdiction are dismissed before hearing. Parents can also argue that a district gave up a defense it left out of its written response to the complaint.
Key authority cited
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021020362
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021030817
ORDER DENYING CONEJO VALLEY’S MOTION TO DISMISS
STUDENT’S ISSUES 6, 7, AND 8
JUNE 1, 2021
On May 25, 2021, Conejo Valley Unified School District filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a motion to dismiss what Student numbered Issue 3 in his request for due process hearing. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH.
On May 28, 2021, Student filed an opposition. Although the Administrative Law Judge had not yet seen Student’s response, filed in the late afternoon of May 28, 2021, at the time of the prehearing conference on May 28, 2021, the attorneys for both Conejo Valley and Student presented oral argument regarding Conejo Valley’s motion.
Based on discussion with the parties during the prehearing conference, what Student numbered Issue 3 in his complaint was separated and numbered Issues 6, 7, and 8 and in the May 28, 2021 Order Following Prehearing Conference.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as civil rights claims, claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, enforcement of settlement agreements, or incorrect parties, special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, the motion to dismiss is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits for which determinations of fact, or determinations of mixed fact and law, are required. Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
Conejo Valley is not prohibited from asserting the arguments raised in its motion to dismiss as a defense during the due process hearing. And Student is not prohibited from asserting arguments raised in opposition to Conejo Valley’s motion, including that Conejo Valley’s defense fails because Conejo Valley did not assert this defense in its February 22, 2021 response to Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Kara Hatfield Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings