Order Following Prehearing Conference, Order Denying Request to File a Second Amended Complaint, and Order Denying Motion to Consolidate

BEFORE THE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT

v.

FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2023120830

ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE, ORDER

DENYING REQUEST TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT, AND ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE

JUNE 14, 2024

On June 14, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Clifford H. Woosley, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.

Attorney Rhonda L. Krietemeyer appeared on behalf of Student. Attorney Erniest L. Bell appeared on behalf of Fountain Valley School District. The PHC was recorded.

Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:

HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION

STUDENT’S MOTION TO FILE A SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT IS

DENIED

On June 11, 2024, Student filed a motion to file a second amended due process request. Fountain Valley filed notice of non-opposition to the motion to amend on June 13, 2024.

The parties discussed the motion to amend at the prehearing conference. The motion was denied. A separate order will issue, denying Student’s motion to file a second amended complaint.

The hearing will proceed as presently scheduled.

FOUNTAIN VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE ITS

JUNE 11, 2024, COMPLAINT, IS DENIED

On June 11, 2024, Fountain Valley filed a request for due process, naming Student, called Fountain Valley’s complaint, OAH Case No. 2024060443. Fountain Valley also filed a motion to consolidate Fountain Valley’s complaint with this matter. On June 13, 2024, Student filed notice of non-opposition to the motion to consolidate in this matter. OAH issued a scheduling order on June 13, 2024, setting the hearing on Fountain Valley’s complaint for July 2 and 3, 2024.

Fountain Valley’s motion to consolidate was discussed at the prehearing conference. As of today, Student is not represented in Fountain’s Valley’s complaint.

Also, Fountain Valley wished to retain the hearing dates set on its complaint.

Since this matter is proceeding on the presently scheduled hearing dates, Fountain Valley’s motion to consolidate is denied.

DUE PROCESS HEARING

The hearing will take place on June 25 26, and 27, 2024, and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. Student anticipates the hearing will take ten days to complete. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing.

HEARING LOCATION

OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Zoom application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using computer or device with video capability and Zoom.

The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.

ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

A free appropriate public education is called a FAPE, and an individualized education program is called an IEP. Fountain Valley Unified School District is called Fountain Valley.

Pursuant to discussions with the parties during the PHC, the ALJ has clarified the statement of some issues and re-ordered the issues as allowed by the holdings in J.W. v.

Fresno Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443, and Ford v. Long Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086, 1090. No change in substance has been made.

The issues at the due process hearing, and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC are:

ISSUES

1. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE from December 20, 2021, to

February 2022, by failing to recognized Student’s need for further:

a. support in the areas of reading, mental health, assistive technology,

and social emotional well-being; and

b. assessment in the areas of reading, mental health, assistive

technology, and social emotional?

2. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s February 10 2022

annual IEP, by failing to adequately assess Student in the areas of:

a. Reading;

b. mental health;

c. social-emotional;

d. written language;

e. fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

3. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s February 10, 2022

annual IEP, by failing to offer adequate accommodations and related services to meet Student’s needs in:

a. Reading;

b. Mental health;

c. Social-emotional;

d. Written language;

e. Fluency;

f. Math;

g. Social science;

h. Science;

i. Speech and language;

j. Attention; and k. Assistive technology?

4. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s February 10, 2022

annual IEP, by:

a. Failing to ensure that Student was educated to the maximum extent

practical with “typically developing peers,” supporting Student’s general education inclusion with adequate aids and services; and

b. Predetermining Student’s special education placement, without

consideration of Student’s individualized need for maximum inclusion in general education?

5. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE during extended school year, for

the summer of 2022, by placing Student in a generic summer program which failed to provide Student with the accommodations, related services, and placement, provided by Student’s IEP?

6. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 31, 2023

annual IEP, by failing to adequately assess Student in the areas of:

a. Reading;

b. mental health;

c. social-emotional;

d. written language;

e. fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

7. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 31, 2023

annual IEP, by failing to offer adequate accommodations and related services to meet Student’s needs in:

a. Reading;

b. Mental health;

c. Social-emotional;

d. Written language;

e. Fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

8. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 31, 2023

annual IEP, by:

a. Failing to ensure that Student was educated to the maximum extent

practical with “typically developing peers,” supporting Student’s general education inclusion with adequate aids and services; and

b. Predetermining Student’s special education placement, without

consideration of Student’s individualized need for maximum inclusion in general education?

9. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE by failing to assure that Student

properly received his special education services, in accordance with his IEP, during Student’s hospitalizations and medical absences in the Spring of 2023?

10. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s June 12, 2023 IEP,

by failing to adequately assess Student in the areas of:

a. Reading;

b. mental health;

c. social-emotional;

d. written language;

e. fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

11. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s June 12, 2023 IEP,

by failing to offer adequate accommodations and related services to meet Student’s needs in:

a. Reading;

b. Mental health;

c. Social-emotional;

d. Written language;

e. Fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

12. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s June 12, 2023 IEP’s

nonpublic school placement of Student at Marden, for the 2023-2024 school year, by:

a. Failing to ensure that Student was educated to the maximum extent

practical with “typically developing peers,” supporting Student’s general education inclusion with adequate aids and services; and

b. Predetermining Student’s special education placement, without

consideration of Student’s individualized need for maximum inclusion in general education?

13. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE during extended school year, for

the summer of 2023, by placing Student in a generic summer program which failed to provide Student the accommodations, related services, and placement, provided by Student’s IEP?

14. For the 2023-2024 school year, did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE

by failing to meet its responsibility as the local educational agency responsible for providing Student with a FAPE, by:

a. Inadequately monitoring and remediating the nonpublic school

Marden’s failure to provide Student a FAPE;

b. Not seeking alternative program and placement options to address

Student’s academic, social, emotional and behavioral needs, to assure the provision of FAPE?

15. For the 2023-2024 school year, did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE

by:

a. Failing to timely inform Parent that Marden gave notice of its intent

to terminate Student’s placement and not allow Student’s return after the 2024 Spring break;

b. failing to timely identify an appropriate outside placement for

Student, following Mardan, to ensure continuous school attendance;

c. Not ensuring Parent’s participation in the IEP development process

by giving Parent inadequate time to consider Fountain Valley’s proposed placement; and

d. Refusing to offer placement in a Fountain Valley program, as an

interim measure, thereby depriving Student of any educational services?

16. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 30, 2024

IEP, with subsequent meetings on February 26 and March 8, 2024, by failing to adequately assess Student in the areas of:

a. Reading;

b. mental health;

c. social-emotional;

d. written language;

e. fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

17. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 30, 2024

IEP, with subsequent meetings on February 26 and March 8, 2024,, by failing to offer adequate accommodations and related services to meet Student’s needs in:

a. Reading;

b. Mental health;

c. Social-emotional;

d. Written language;

e. Fluency;

f. math;

g. social science;

h. science;

i. speech and language;

j. attention; and k. assistive technology?

18. Did Fountain Valley deny Student a FAPE, in Student’s January 30, 2024

IEP, with subsequent meetings on February 26 and March 8, 2024, in offering Student a nonpublic school placement at Upward Bound, for the 2024-2025 school year, by:

a. Failing to ensure that Student was educated to the maximum extent

practical with “typically developing peers,” supporting Student’s general education inclusion with adequate aids and services; and

b. Predetermining Student’s special education placement, without

consideration of Student’s individualized need for maximum inclusion in general education; and

c. Failing to ensure that Parent’s participation in the IEP development

in determining the IEP’s offer of placement? Student alleged that Fountain Valley’s treatment of Student violated the prohibition of disability-based discrimination, pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which Student identified as Issue 9 in his prehearing conference statement. OAH does not have jurisdiction over Section 504 and, therefore, this issue is dismissed.

A party must immediately file a written request for relief if the issues, as stated in this Order, do not reflect their understanding of the issues as clarified at the PHC.

STUDENT’S PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

The resolutions requested by Student includes independent educational evaluations, formulation of comprehensive goals, outside tutoring, compensatory services, an intensive research-based reading remediation, and counseling and therapy, parent services and training, reimbursement for educationally related services and supports, and nonpublic school placement.

Fountain Valley filed its response to Student’s amended complaint on April 26,

2024. (M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189,

1199-1200.)

EXHIBITS

The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.

Timely uploading electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7).

Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.

IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS

Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. Fountain Valley must use the letter D before the number to identify Fountain Valley’s exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means Fountain Valley’s exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.

CONTENT

Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.

Parties should include resumes or curriculum vitae for each witness who is expected to testify as an expert.

Fountain Valley’s exhibits must include a copy of the school calendar for each school year in question.

Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.

Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.

WITNESSES

The parties shall serve their list of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.

Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants who have not previously used the Zoom application, may find informative instructions on at by visiting, Getting Started with Zoom at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/200101697.

The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment. If a witness does not have the necessary equipment, the ALJ may permit the witnesses to appear by audio only or by telephone.

“Audio only” means using a computer without webcam. Witness ability to attend the hearing by videoconference will be discussed at the start of the hearing.

The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order.

The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for testimony. Education Code, section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing after consideration of four factors. The first two factors are the issues to be heard and the complexity of facts to be proven. The second two factors are the ability of the parties or their representatives to present their respective cases and the parties’ estimates of the time needed to present their cases.

MEET AND CONFER

The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.

The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than June 19, 2024. to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take. The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing and electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, or subpoenas, if any.

The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits.

The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.

As part of the meet and confer process, Fountain Valley shall inform Student which proposed witnesses are district employees. Fountain Valley shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. Fountain Valley may agree to accept service for witnesses under Fountain Valley’s control or provide Student with the witness’ most recent contact information.

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM

Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.

The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.

Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting a witness to attend the hearing. Any contact information shall not be disclosed to any other person.

EVIDENCE PRESENTATION

In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this case Student requested the hearing and bears the burden of proof. Student’s case-in-chief shall be presented first, followed by Fountain Valley, unless otherwise ordered.

WITNESS LISTS

The parties must provide a joint proposed witness schedule to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, their title, which party(s) are calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’ expected testimony. Student must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.

At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony each witness.

SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION

Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine a witness on all issues when the witness is first called to testify.

Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case-in-chief.

AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY

Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing.

ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS

AUDIO RECORDING

A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.

Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon certain conditions. The conditions are:

1. the OAH recording is the only official recording;

2. the parties shall turn their recording device on and off at the same time

that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;

3. operation of the party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay

the hearing;

4. a party’s recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or

potential witness;

5. the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process

hearing; and

6. participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference nor share or

publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.

The parties’ requests to audio record are granted, subject to these conditions.

VIDEO RECORDING

No party, witness, or anyone else may make any video recording of any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.

RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS

Student proposes to introduce all or part of a recording of an individualized education program team meeting. Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing.

The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.

COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT

Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.

MOTIONS

No prehearing motions are pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.

STIPULATIONS

Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.

CONDUCT OF COUNSEL AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM

All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Participants must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Counsel, parties, and witnesses should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. Parties, counsel and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.

LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

The parties are unaware of any hearing participant that requires an interpreter or reasonable accommodations.

A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in a mediation or hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line.

Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of- Administrative-Hearings-Services-List-Folder/Accommodations-at-OAH.

HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC

The hearing is closed to the public. Special education hearings are closed to the public unless a student requests the hearing to be open to the public.

SETTLEMENT

The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.

In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.

If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.

Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.

If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.

FAILURE TO COMPLY

The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.

ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS

This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings