California OAH special education order · July 26, 2021
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
OAH Case No. 2021030156 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones
OAH denied Larchmont Charter School's mid-hearing motion to dismiss because special education law has no directed-verdict-style dismissal; whether Charter is the responsible agency will be decided in the final decision.
This case went to decision
Student v. Larchmont Charter School: Larchmont Charter must repay half of Bridges Academy tuition and fund 16 hours of counseling after cutting services without a meeting. (2021)
Summary
While the due process hearing was underway, Larchmont Charter School moved to dismiss, arguing it was not the responsible local educational agency under the facts of the case. Student opposed the motion, and Charter filed an unauthorized reply. OAH explained that it dismisses claims that are plainly outside its jurisdiction, such as civil rights, Section 504, or settlement-enforcement claims, but special education law does not allow a motion to dismiss that works like a directed verdict or nonsuit. The motion was denied without prejudice, the responsible-agency question was left for the written decision after hearing, and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
An agency cannot use a mid-hearing motion to dismiss to get a fact-based ruling, such as whether it is the responsible agency, before the case is decided on the full evidence. Families can expect those disputes to be resolved in the final decision.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LARCHMONT CHARTER SCHOOL.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021030156
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS
JULY 26, 2021
On March 3, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student, collectively referred to as Student, filed a Request for Due Process Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Larchmont Charter School. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
The due process hearing in the matter commenced on June 29, 2021. On July 21, 2021, while the due process hearing was pending, Charter filed a motion to dismiss. The motion contends that Charter is not liable to Student because, under the facts of this case, Charter is not the responsible local educational agency. On July 22, 2021, Student filed an opposition to the motion. On July 26, 2021, Charter School, without authorization, filed a reply to the opposition.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as civil rights claims, Section 504 claims, and enforcement of settlement agreements, special education law does not provide for a motion to dismiss which, as here, is akin to a motion for a directed verdict or nonsuit. The issues raised by the motion and Student’s opposition to the motion will be decided in the written decision which will issue after the hearing.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Elsa H. Jones Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings