California OAH special education order · November 24, 2021
Order Denying Motion to Compel Response as Moot
OAH Case No. 2021080878 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied Student's motion to compel Pleasanton to respond to her complaint as moot, because Pleasanton's November 16 filing appeared to respond to the second amended complaint.
Summary
Pleasanton never responded to Student's original or first amended due process complaint, and Student moved to compel a response. On November 16, 2021, Pleasanton filed a document titled "Response to Amended Request for Due Process." The text of that filing said it responded to the complaint version received October 26, 2021, which was the second amended complaint. OAH found the motion moot because the response appeared to address the second amended complaint, and it allowed Student to file another motion if that reading was wrong.
Why it matters
Districts must respond to due process complaints, and a motion to compel can prompt a response. Once the district files a response to the current complaint, the motion becomes moot. Parents can renew the motion if the response does not actually address the operative complaint.
Key authority cited
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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.
PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021080878
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE AS
MOOT
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
On August 27, 2021, Student filed her original Request for Due Process Hearing, called a complaint, in this matter. On September 22, 2021, Student filed a first amended complaint. OAH did not receive from Pleasanton any response to either the original or the first amended complaint. (See M.C. v. Antelope Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir.
2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.)
On October 26, 2021, Student filed a second amended complaint. On November 16, 2021, Pleasanton filed a “Response to Amended Request for Due Process”
that contained in its text the statement that Pleasanton was responding to the version of the complaint it received on October 26, 2021.
Notwithstanding the title of Pleasanton’s November 16, 2021, filing, it appears from its contents to be a response to the second amended complaint, which was filed on October 26, 2021. Student’s motion to compel a response is therefore moot. If this reading of the response is incorrect, Student may file another motion to compel a response.
ORDER
Student’s motion to compel a response is denied as moot.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings