California OAH special education order · August 15, 2024
Notice of No Action Regarding Notice of Insufficiency and Request for Dismissal
OAH Case No. 2024080064 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH declined to rule on Riverside's notice of insufficiency and request for dismissal because the district combined them with its complaint response in one document, and OAH does not rule on multiple-motion filings.
Summary
Riverside filed one document that combined a notice of insufficiency, a request to dismiss Student's complaint, and a response to the complaint. Parent, representing Student without a lawyer, asked that Riverside's motions be dismissed. OAH accepted the response to the complaint as filed but took no action on the insufficiency notice or the dismissal request. OAH explained that it does not rule on documents containing multiple motions, because each has a different timeline and combining them makes responses and rulings confusing. Riverside may refile its motions separately.
Why it matters
Districts and parents must file each motion as a separate document, especially a notice of insufficiency, which has its own short deadlines. OAH will simply ignore motions bundled with other requests.
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.
RIVERSIDE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024080064
NOTICE OF NO ACTION REGARDING NOTICE OF
INSUFFICIENCY AND REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL
AUGUST 15, 2024
On July 31, 2024, self-represented Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Riverside Unified School District as respondent. On August 15, 2024, Riverside filed a document titled Notice of Insufficiency and Response to Petitioner’s Request for Due Process Hearing. This document also contained a request that Student’s complaint be dismissed. On August 15, 2024, Student filed a response to Riverside’s document, asserting that Riverside’s motions should be dismissed without prejudice as it contained multiple assertions, none of which attacked the sufficiency of the request for due process.
While “dismissal” of Riverside’s document is not the appropriate procedural step in these circumstances, OAH will take no action on Riverside’s motions. OAH does not rule on documents containing multiple motions. This is an excellent example of the basis for the rule. In attempting to combine a notice of insufficiency, a request for dismissal and a response to Student’s complaint, Riverside makes responses and rulings to their motions confusing and cumbersome. The response to the complaint requires no action on the part of Student or OAH, the notice of insufficiency has a defined and short timeline for both Student’s response and OAH ruling and a motion to dismiss does not have such a statutory schedule. Riverside’s response to Student’s complaint is acknowledged as filed. No action will be taken on Riverside’s ostensible Notice of Insufficiency or its request that Student’s complaint be dismissed. Nothing in this notice prevents Riverside from refiling whatever motions it deems appropriate separately on a future date.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings