California OAH special education order · December 6, 2023
Notice of No Action on District's Motions to Dismiss, Unexpedite, Consolidate, and Continue
OAH Case No. 2023110714 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH refused to act on Sequoia's motions to dismiss, unexpedite, and continue because they were bundled into one filing, and found the consolidation motion moot after Sequoia dismissed its own case.
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
Sequoia filed a single document that combined a Notice of Insufficiency with motions to dismiss, to 'unexpedite,' to consolidate, and to continue Student's complaint. Student's complaint included both expedited and non-expedited issues. OAH said it does not accept multiple motions in one document, because response times, ruling deadlines, and legal standards differ, and bundling can confuse the opposing party. OAH took no action on the motions to dismiss, unexpedite, and continue, found the consolidation motion moot because Sequoia had dismissed its own case on December 4, 2023, and said it would rule on the insufficiency notice separately.
Why it matters
Each motion to OAH must be filed and served as its own document. If motions are bundled together, OAH may simply refuse to rule on them, and the other side does not have to respond to them.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)
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
NOTICE OF NO ACTION ON DISTRICT’S MOTIONS TO
DISMISS, UNEXPEDITE, CONSOLIDATE, AND CONTINUE
DECEMBER 6, 2023
On October 5, 2023, Sequoia Union High School District filed a request for due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Student as respondent. On November 21, 2023, Student filed a complaint with OAH, naming Sequoia as respondent. Student’s case alleged issues that require an expedited hearing and decision, pursuant to United States Code, title 20, section 1415(k), as well as issues that are not required to be determined on an expedited basis.
On December 1, 2023, Sequoia filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint, combined with motions to dismiss, to “unexpedite,” to consolidate, and to continue.
Sequoia dismissed its case on December 4, 2023.
OAH does not accept multiple motions combined into one document, as times for responses from opposing parties, times for rulings and applicable legal standards vary for different motions. For instance, the IDEA requires that a ruling on a Notice of Insufficiency be issued within five-days of filing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2(D).) The same deadline does not apply to orders on the other motions bundled together. Combining motions also causes confusion for the opposing party and the possibility that a motion requiring response can be missed.
OAH will take no action on Sequoia’s Motions to dismiss, unexpedite or continue as they were not separately filed and served as required. Sequoia’s motion to consolidate is moot as Sequoia’s case was dismissed on December 4, 2023. Sequoia’s Notice of Insufficiency will be addressed in a separate document.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings