California OAH special education order · December 14, 2023
Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023110714 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH denied Student's motion to amend because it came too late, five days before the expedited hearing, without District consent, and did not disclose that it added a new expedited issue.
This case went to decision
Student v. Sequoia Union High School District: Sequoia Union High School District prevails; manifestation team need not decide IEP implementation question once it finds conduct disability-related. (2024)
Summary
Student moved to amend the complaint the day after a lengthy expedited prehearing conference. Student said the amendment would add claims from the December 2023 annual IEP meetings and an assessment-defense issue. The amended complaint also quietly added a new expedited issue from the May 8, 2023 manifestation determination review. Sequoia Union opposed, saying it was confused about the scope and would be prejudiced because it had already submitted evidence and subpoenaed witnesses. OAH denied the motion as untimely and without written consent, called it misleading for omitting the new expedited issue, and kept all dates on calendar.
Why it matters
A motion to amend must clearly disclose every claim being added, especially expedited ones, and late amendments filed right before an expedited hearing are likely to be denied. Families can still amend non-expedited claims after the expedited hearing or file a separate expedited complaint.
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.
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023110714
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT
DECEMBER 14, 2023
On November 21, 2023, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Sequoia Union High School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On December 11, 2023, OAH held an expedited prehearing conference. On December 12, 2023, Student filed a Motion to Amend the Due Process Hearing Request and an amended complaint. On December 14, 2023, Sequoia Union 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).)
The motion to amend the complaint is not timely. Student’s motion to amend was filed after a lengthy expedited prehearing conference was held on December 11, 2023. At the expedited prehearing conference, the undersigned determined that one of the three issues pled as expedited claims involved an expedited claim. Student’s amended complaint alleges the same three claims as expedited allegations and adds one new expedited issue. All expedited claims arose from a May 8, 2023, manifestation determination review meeting.
Student’s motion to amend states that he filed the amended due process to raise procedural and substantive allegations that resulted from Student’s annual IEP team meetings that concluded on December 8, 2023, as well as an issue addressing Sequoia Union’s failure to defend their 2021 psychological assessment and functional behavior assessment without undue delay. In the motion to amend, Student does not state that he is amending the complaint to allege a new expedited issue related to the manifestation determination review meeting. Student’s motion to amend is misleading because it omits notice than an additional expedited issue is being raised in the amended complaint.
Sequoia Union contends it was confused by Student’s motion to amend because it was not clear whether he was requesting to amend claims scheduled for the expedited hearing. Sequioa Union does not object to amending the claims for the non-expedited hearing. Sequoia Union complains that it would be unduly prejudiced if Student were allowed leave to amend the complaint five days before the expedited due process hearing. Sequioa Union asserts that it has already submitted evidence for hearing, subpoenaed witnesses, has spent time preparing for hearing, and is in the process of preparing for the hearing based on the expedited prehearing conference that was held.
Student’s motion to amend is denied because it is not timely and there is no written consent to amendment. Student did not establish a basis to amend the expedited complaint as he represented that he was only amending the non-expedited claims. All dates shall remain on calendar.
Nothing in this Order prevents Student from filing an amended complaint after the expedited due process hearing, to amend the non-expedited claims. Nothing in this Order prevents Student from filing a separate complaint with expedited claims.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings