California OAH special education order · September 7, 2022
Order Granting Leave to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022050638, 2022060907 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH granted Student leave to file a second amended complaint over Pleasanton's opposition, because the motion was timely and a motion to amend is not a vehicle for attacking the complaint's allegations.
This case went to decision
Student v. Pleasanton Unified School District: Pleasanton Unified denied FAPE by lacking a complete, signed IEP; must reimburse private services, less amounts already paid, and train staff. (2022)
Summary
Student moved to file a second amended complaint in consolidated cases against Pleasanton. Pleasanton opposed. It argued the amendment attacked a prior February 24, 2022 Decision and an August 18, 2022 order denying stay put, and re-raised issues already decided. OAH found the complaint did allege newer violations, including IEP offers made in March and May 2022, and other claims still within the statute of limitations that the earlier Decision had not decided. OAH held that weak allegations are not a reason to deny leave to amend, granted the timely motion, and reset all timelines.
Why it matters
A district cannot use an opposition to a motion to amend to knock out allegations it thinks are already decided or legally weak. It must challenge them by other means, such as a motion to dismiss. Families should remember that amending a complaint restarts all hearing timelines.
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 MATTER OF:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
PLEASANTON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022050638
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022060907
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT
SEPTEMBER 7, 2022
On May 18, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming the Pleasanton Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On August 25, 2022, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request and an amended complaint. On August 29, 2022, Pleasanton 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).)
This matter is a successor to Student v. Pleasanton Unified Sch. Dist.¸ OAH Case No. 2021100357, in which the undersigned issued a Decision on February 24, 2022, after five days of hearing.
Pleasanton argues that the proposed second amended complaint should be rejected because its allegations are partly an attack on the February 24, 2022, Decision, partly an attack on an August 18, 2022, order denying Student’s motion for stay put, and partly a return to contentions already decided. Extensive portions of the proposed second amended complaint can arguably be so characterized, but Pleasanton’s claim that Student does not allege violations in the time period after the February 24, 2022, Decision is inaccurate. Part of the proposed second amended complaint attacks offers of individualized education programs made by Pleasanton on March 26 and May 16 and 17, 2022. In addition, there are some substantive arguments still within the statute of limitations that the February 24, 2022, Decision did not decide.
Pleasanton is correct that large portions of the proposed second amended complaint are vulnerable to the attacks Pleasanton makes on them. Other portions make factual and legal arguments more appropriate for a brief. However, that is not a ground for denying leave to amend, and Pleasanton offers no authority to establish that a motion to amend can be used as a vehicle to reject allegations and arguments made in the proposed amended complaint. Pleasanton may challenge those allegations in other ways.
The hearing in these consolidated cases is now calendared to start on September 29, 2022. The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing. Therefore, it is timely and is granted. The second 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings