California OAH special education order · November 17, 2021
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel Response to Second Amended Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021080879 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH denied Student's motion to compel Pleasanton Unified's response to the second amended complaint as moot because the District filed its response after the motion was filed.
Summary
Student filed a motion asking OAH to compel Pleasanton Unified School District to respond to Student's second amended due process complaint. The District did not respond to the motion. It did file its response to the second amended complaint on November 16, 2021. OAH noted that state and federal law require a district to send the parent a response within 10 days when it has not already given prior written notice on the issues, and denied the motion as moot because the response had now been filed.
Why it matters
Districts must respond to a due process complaint, including an amended one, within 10 days if they have not already given prior written notice on the issues. A motion to compel can prompt a late response, but once the district responds, OAH will treat the motion as moot.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e)(1)(i)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(A)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School 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 2021080879
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RESPONSE TO SECOND AMENDED
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
NOVEMBER 17, 2021
On August 27, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Pleasanton Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On September 14, 2021, Student filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Amended Complaint. On September 22, 2021, OAH issued an Order Granting Motion to Amend Complaint.
On October 20, 2021, Student filed a Motion to Amend Complaint and Second Amended Complaint. On October 26, 2021, OAH issued an Order Granting Motion to File Second Amended Complaint.
On November 10, 2021, Student filed a Motion to Compel Response to Second Amended Due Process Complaint. OAH did not receive a response to Student’s motion to compel from Pleasanton Unified School District. On November 16, 2021, Pleasanton Unified School District filed a response to Student’s Second Amended Complaint.
State and federal law require a local educational agency to respond to a due process complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e)(1)(i); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(A); M.C. by and through his guardian ad litem M.N. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200 (M.C.).)
California Education Code section 56502(d)(2)(A)-(B) and title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) require a local educational agency to “send to the parent a response” to the due process complaint, if the school district has not sent prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the parent’s due process complaint. The response to the complaint must be sent to the parent within 10 days of receiving the complaint.
Here, Pleasanton Unified School District filed its response to Student’s Second Amended Complaint on November 16, 2021. As a result, Student’s motion to compel is moot. For this reason, Student’s motion to compel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings