California OAH special education order · February 28, 2022
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Leave to Request Sanctions
OAH Case No. 2022020444 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Beverly Hills' assessment case and request for leave to seek sanctions, because the motion sought a merits ruling and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
Summary
Beverly Hills filed a case asking OAH to find its October 2021 assessments appropriate. Student moved to dismiss because the California Department of Education had already found that Beverly Hills unnecessarily delayed responding to Parents' request for independent occupational therapy and transition assessments, and had ordered Beverly Hills to fund them. Student argued the district's filing was a bad faith attempt to evade the CDE order and asked for leave to request sanctions. OAH denied both requests because the motion was not limited to matters facially outside OAH's jurisdiction but sought a ruling on the merits and a review of CDE's determination, and special education law does not provide for summary judgment. Student's request for a continuance was deferred to the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
A favorable CDE compliance finding does not automatically end a district's due process case defending its own assessments. Parents must generally fight that case on the merits at hearing, because OAH will not dismiss it on a summary-judgment-style motion. A sanctions request tied to a failed dismissal motion is likely to fail too.
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:
BEVERLY HILLS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
V.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022020444
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO REQUEST SANCTIONS
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
On February 18, 2022, Student filed a motion to dismiss, or a continuance of the hearing dates, and requested leave to file sanctions with the Office of Administrative Hearings. On February 23, 2022, Beverly Hills Unified School District, called Beverly Hills, filed a response opposing the dismissal, and agreeing to a hearing continuance if the parties agreed on the dates. On February 25, 2022, Student filed reply to Beverly Hills’ response.
Student’s motion and reply argued that because the California Department of Education, called CDE, determined that Beverly Hills unnecessarily delayed in responding to Parents’ request for independent occupational therapy and transition assessments, Beverly Hills’ complaint asking OAH to determine if its October 2021 assessments were appropriate should be dismissed. Student argued that Beverly Hill’s complaint, filed with OAH after CDE’s order Beverly Hills to fund the independent assessments, constituted a bad faith attempt to evade the CDE’s order. Therefore, Student also requested leave to request sanctions against Beverly Hills.
Beverly Hills argued that Student’s motion to dismiss was akin to a summary judgment motion, and inappropriate. Beverly Hills also argued that Student’s request for leave to file a request for sanctions was unripe for OAH’s determination because Student did not request sanctions, but for leave to request sanctions. Beverly Hills also represented that it was not opposed to a brief hearing continuance.
Although OAH will grant motions to dismiss allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as, civil rights claims, section 504 claims, 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, and a review of the substance of CDE’s determination and its impact on the OAH case.
Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is denied. Accordingly, Student’s motion for leave to request sanctions is also denied.
Student’s motion for a hearing continuance, will be considered at the prehearing conference. The parties are ordered to meet and confer before the prehearing conference regarding acceptable hearing dates and be prepared to discuss the proposed dates at the prehearing conference. All dates currently set in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sabrina Kong Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings