California OAH special education order · November 22, 2024

Order Granting Second Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Request for Continuance and Motion to Quash Subpoena Duces Tecum as Moot

OAH Case No. 2024080524 · ALJ Theresa Ravandi

OAH granted Student's unopposed second motion to amend because it was filed more than five days before hearing, vacating all dates and denying Palo Alto's continuance request and Student's motion to quash as moot.

Granted Amending the complaint

Summary

Student asked to file a second amended complaint. The new complaint adds facts and alleged denials of a free appropriate public education that arose after the first amended complaint, and Palo Alto did not respond to the motion. OAH granted the motion as timely because it was filed more than five days before the December 3, 2024 hearing. All dates were vacated and timelines reset, so OAH denied Palo Alto's request to continue and Student's motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum as moot.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)

Topics

amended complaint timelines reset continuance subpoena duces tecum moot

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 2024080524

ORDER GRANTING SECOND MOTION TO AMEND

COMPLAINT AND DENYING REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

AND MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM AS

MOOT

NOVEMBER 22, 2024

On August 12, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Palo Alto Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH. On October 16, 2024, OAH granted Student’s motion to file a first amended complaint. This matter is currently scheduled for hearing beginning December 3, 2024. On November 18, 2024, Student filed a second motion to amend along with a proposed second amended complaint. Palo Alto has not responded to this motion.

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).)

Student seeks to add facts and alleged denials of a free appropriate public education that are related to the original issues and arose after the filing of the first amended complaint. The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing. Therefore, it is timely and is granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All pending dates are vacated. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.

Palo Alto filed a request to continue all dates on November 19, 2024. On that same date Student filed a non-opposition to a continuance but did not agree to the proposed hearing schedule. In light of this Order, the motion to continue is denied as moot.

Similarly, Student’s November 19, 2024 motion to quash subpoena duces tecum is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Theresa Ravandi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings