California OAH special education order · May 19, 2021
Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021040393, 2021020664 · ALJ Claire Yazigi
OAH granted Student's timely motion to amend over Enterprise's opposition. The district cited no legal authority barring the new issues, and summer break was not a reason to deny amendment.
This case went to decision
Student v. Enterprise Elementary School District (consolidated): Enterprise Elementary must fund 104 hours of in-home services and a health IEE after its virtual-only offer denied FAPE. (2022)
Summary
Student moved to amend the due process complaint in this consolidated case. Enterprise opposed. It argued that summer break would delay the hearing, that Student knew earlier about the facts behind new issue two, that new issue six resulted from the parent's own actions, and that issue six duplicated issue four. OAH granted the motion because it was filed more than five days before hearing and Enterprise cited no authority barring amendment on any of those grounds. All timelines reset as of the order date, and OAH explained that mediation requests must be made jointly.
Why it matters
A timely motion to amend is generally granted unless the opposing party shows a legal bar. Hearing dates follow legal timelines, not the school calendar, and witnesses can be reached by subpoena during breaks.
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
and
ENTERPRISE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021040393
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021020664
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
MAY 19, 2021
On April 9, 2021, Student filed a due process hearing request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Enterprise School District as respondent. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On April 15, 2021, OAH ordered the present case be consolidated with OAH case number 2021020664, designating this case as the primary case. On May 12, 2021, Student filed a motion to amend the due process hearing request and an amended complaint.
Enterprise filed an opposition.
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).)
Enterprise opposes the motion to amend on several grounds. First, Enterprise cites the impending summer break as a prejudicial factor. Enterprise believes that if the motion to amend is granted, hearing will be reset to after summer break, when staff witnesses will be back at work. Enterprise’s concern is that Student will not be receiving any services during this time. Any new hearing dates will be set according to applicable law, irrespective of school calendar. The parties may reach any necessary witnesses by subpoena.
Second, Enterprise opposes the substance of the amendments themselves.
Specifically, Enterprise alleges that Student knew or should have known of the facts underlying Student’s new issue two at the time of Student’s initial filing. Enterprise also alleges that Student’s new issue six is a result of parent’s actions. Enterprise has not provided any authority to suggest that Student should be precluded from amending Student’s complaint as a matter of law for any of the foregoing reasons.
Enterprise also alleges that Student’s new issue six (“Whether [Enterprise], having received a full consent to its proposed assessment plan on March 1, 2021, has timely acted to complete the medical assessment agreed to by Luca’s parent”) is essentially the same as Student’s issue four (“Whether [Enterprise], having conducted a health assessment of Luca January 30, 2020, had a right to conduct a second health assessment of him”). If anything, Student’s issues four and six seem contradictory. But Enterprise has not provided any authority to suggest that Student should be precluded from amending Student’s complaint as a matter of law.
The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing. Therefore, it is timely and is granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
Student requested mediation in Student’s amended complaint. Any request for mediation must be made jointly by the parties to OAH, and shall set forth mutually acceptable proposed dates for OAH’s consideration. Student also requested that OAH provide the background and training of any assigned mediator and of the ALJ assigned to this matter. Information on OAH’s ALJs may be found online at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/About/ALJ-Biographical-Information.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Claire Yazigi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings