California OAH special education order · August 8, 2024
Notice of No Action on Student's Third Motion for Stay Put and Notice of No Action on Palo Alto Unified School District's Motion to Continue
OAH Case No. 2024060681 · ALJ Clifford H. Woosley
OAH took no action on Student's third stay put motion because stay put had already been decided twice. It also took no action on Student's filing about a continuance motion already ruled on at the prehearing conference.
Summary
Student filed a third motion asking OAH to order Palo Alto Unified to implement Student's last agreed-upon IEP placement, and Palo Alto Unified opposed it. ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin had already denied Student's first stay put motion, then granted reconsideration and denied stay put again. OAH took no action on the third request because it had already been ruled on. OAH also took no action on Student's further filing about Palo Alto Unified's motion to continue, because that motion was decided at the July 29, 2024 prehearing conference and was no longer pending.
Why it matters
Filing the same stay put request again after it has been denied, including on reconsideration, will not get a new ruling from OAH. Families need new facts or a different legal basis to ask again. Arguments about a motion should be made before or at the prehearing conference where it is decided.
People named in the order
- Tiffany Gilmartin, Administrative Law Judge (prior stay put orders)
- Matthew J. Tamel, Attorney for Palo Alto Unified School District
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.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024060681
NOTICE OF NO ACTION ON STUDENT’S THIRD MOTION
FOR STAY PUT AND NOTICE OF NO ACTION ON PALO
ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S MOTION TO
CONTINUE
AUGUST 08, 2024
On July 25, 2024, Student filed a motion to order Palo Alto Unified School District to implement Student’s last, agreed upon IEP. Student also replied to Palo Alto Unified’s reply to Student’s opposition to Palo Alto Unified’s motion to continue. On July 30, 2024, Palo Alto Unified filed opposition to Student’s motion, supported by the declaration of its attorney, Matthew J. Tamel.
PALO ALTO UNIFIED’S MOTION TO CONTINUE
Student’s opposition to motion to continue concerns Palo Alto Unified’s motion, which was filed on July 24, 2024. Palo Alto Unified’s motion to continue was discussed and ruled upon at the July 29, 2024 prehearing conference. The motion to continue is no longer pending and, therefore, no action is taken regarding Student’s opposition.
STUDENT’S THIRD MOTION TO STAY PUT
On June 19, 2024, Student filed a motion to stay put, relying upon Student’s June 29, 2023 IEP. On June 27, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Tiffany Gilmartin issued an Order denying Student’s motion.
On June 28, 2024, Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Denial of Student’s Motion for Stay Put. On June 28, 2024, ALJ Gilmartin issued an Order granting reconsideration. Upon reconsideration. ALJ again denied Student’s motion to stay put.
Student’s July 25, 2024 motion, for an order directing Palo Alto Unified to place Student in the last agreed upon and implemented IEP’s placement, is Student’s third motion for stay put. The stay put request has already been ruled upon and, therefore, OAH takes no action on this third request.
Clifford H. Woosley Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings