California OAH special education order · August 10, 2022
Order Denying Motion to Shift Expenses
OAH Case No. 2022070464 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's motion to shift expenses against Conejo Valley, finding that filing a Notice of Insufficiency one day late showed carelessness but not bad faith, frivolousness, or intent to delay.
Summary
Conejo Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency one day after the 15-day deadline, and OAH found the complaint sufficient for that reason. Student then filed a separate motion asking that Conejo Valley pay Student's expenses, arguing the Notice was frivolous and meant to harass Student and delay the case. The ALJ denied the motion because Student offered no evidence of bad faith. Filing a motion is not by itself evidence of bad faith, and a miscalculated due date shows only a lack of care.
Why it matters
A party asking for sanctions must show both that the filing had no merit and that it was made in bad faith. A late or careless filing alone will not support shifting expenses, even when the opposing side has filed several unsuccessful motions in a row.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11455.30
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3088
- Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
- West Coast Development v. Reed (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 693
- Campbell v. Cal Gard Sur. Services, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 563
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.
CONEJO VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022070464
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHIFT EXPENSES
AUGUST 10, 2022
On July 13, 2022, Student filed a request for due process hearing, also referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Conejo Valley Unified School District as respondent. On July 19, 2022, Conejo Valley filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that Student did not seek permission in advance to serve the document via email. That motion was denied on July 22, 2022.
On July 29, 2022, Conejo Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency. Student filed an opposition to the motion, which included a request for sanctions, on the grounds that the Notice was frivolous and intended to harass Student and delay the proceedings. On August 2, 2022, OAH issued an order finding the complaint sufficient based on the fact that the motion was filed beyond the fifteen-day cutoff for filing. The Administrative Law Judge did not address the sanctions motion on the grounds that different standards and timelines applied to the two motions. The ALJ noted Student was not barred from filing a separately noticed motion for sanctions, which Student did on August 5, 2022.
APPLICABLE LAW
In certain circumstances, a Special Education Division administrative law judge, known as an ALJ, is authorized to shift expenses from one party to another. (Gov. Code, §§ 11405.80, 11455.30; Cal. Code. Regs., tit. 5, § 3088; see Wyner ex rel. Wyner v.
Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1029 [“Clearly, [California Code of Regulations] § 3088 allows a hearing officer to control the proceedings, similar to a trial judge.”].)
An ALJ may, “order a party, the party’s attorney or other authorized representative, or both, to pay reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by another party as a result of bad faith actions or tactics that are frivolous or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay.” (Gov. Code, § 11455.30, subd. (a); Cal. Code.
Regs., tit. 5, § 3088, subd. (a).) An order to pay expenses is enforceable in the same manner as a money judgment or by seeking a contempt of court order. (Gov. Code, § 11455.30, subd. (b).)
“Actions or tactics” is defined as including, but not limited to, making or opposing motions or filing and serving a complaint. (Gov. Code, §11455.30, subd. (a);
Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(1).) “Frivolous” means totally and completely without merit or for the sole purpose of harassing an opposing party. (Gov. Code, § 11455.30, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 128.5, subd. (b)(2).) A finding of “bad faith” does not require a determination of evil motive, and subjective bad faith may be inferred. (West Coast Development v. Reed (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 693, 702.) However, the imposition of sanctions does require a showing that the actions were meritless or frivolous and that the action was pursued in bad faith. (Campbell v. Cal Gard Sur. Services, Inc. (1998) 62 Cal. App. 4th 563, 574, emphasis in the original.)
In this case, Student has failed to offer any evidence that Conejo Valley filed a Notice of Insufficiency in bad faith. The filing of a motion is not, in and of itself, evidence of bad faith. The filing of the Notice of Insufficiency one day after the fifteen- day limit, indicates a lack of care in calculating the due date of the motion. However, more than a date miscalculation is necessary to establish a filing was in bad faith, was frivolous, or solely intended to cause unnecessary delay. As Student has failed to establish the necessary evidence to support the motion, the reasonableness of the requested sanction is not addressed by this order.
Student’s motion for sanctions is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings