California OAH special education order · August 11, 2025

Order Clarifying Issues 2c and 4c

OAH Case No. 2024110845, 2024120812 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz

OAH granted Student's motion to correct the prehearing conference order over Capistrano Unified's objection, restating Issues 2c and 4c to cover 13 areas of need under the amended complaint.

Granted Prehearing conference orders

This case went to decision

Student v. Capistrano Unified School District (consolidated): Capistrano Unified owes 20 hours of attention and executive functioning services; tuition denied for lack of notice and Kentucky residency. (2025)

Summary

Student moved to correct how the July 30, 2025, prehearing conference order described Issues 2c and 4c. Student argued the amended complaint challenged Capistrano Unified's placement offers as failing to meet 13 areas of need, not only as lacking small group instruction. Capistrano Unified objected at hearing that the issues had already been discussed at length at the prehearing conference. The ALJ reviewed the amended complaint and granted the request, restating both issues to ask whether the March 2023 and May 2024 IEPs denied a FAPE by not offering a small-group placement that addressed each of the 13 listed needs.

Why it matters

Parents can ask OAH to correct how a prehearing conference order states their issues so it matches what the complaint actually alleges, even after the district objects. Moving promptly after the order issues helps keep the full scope of the claims available at hearing.

People named in the order

  • Dr. Kathy Purcell, Executive Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Compliance, Capistrano Unified (district representative)
  • Timothy Adams, Student's attorney
  • Rhonda Chow, Student's attorney
  • Cynthia Young, District's attorney

Topics

issue clarification prehearing conference order placement small group instruction unique needs

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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:

PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,

and

CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024110845

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024120812

ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUES 2C AND 4C

AUGUST 11, 2025

On July 30, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, issued an Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference dated July 30, 2025, referred to as the July 30, 2025, PHC Order. The July 30, 2025, PHC Order described the issues to be heard and decided at hearing in these consolidated matters, as alleged in the due process hearing requests, and clarified by the parties and the Administrative Law Judge, called ALJ, during the prehearing conference held on July 28,

2025. The Order instructed the parties to file a notice if the party believes an issue as

described in the Order was misstated or improperly omitted.

On August 1, 2025, Student filed a Motion to Correct Prehearing Conference Order. Specifically, Student moved to correct the July 30, 2025, PHC Order’s descriptions of Issues 2c and 4c. Student argued his amended complaint describing Capistrano Unified School District’s alleged failures to offer an appropriate placement was not limited to a classroom environment providing small group instruction. Rather, Student argues the complaint describes the offer of placement failed to adequately address Student’s unique needs in:

• basic reading skills,

• reading fluency,

• reading comprehension,

• basic writing skills,

• written expression,

• attention,

• executive functioning,

• peer interactions,

• phonological processing,

• orthographic processing,

• self-advocacy,

• social-emotional skills, and

• math application tasks.

Student moved to clarify Issues 2c and 4c to reflect Capistrano Unified’s offers of placement failed to adequately address Student’s unique needs in the 13 areas described.

On August 5, 2025, OAH convened the due process hearing in these consolidated matters. Attorneys Timothy Adams and Rhonda Chow represented Student. Parents attended the hearing on Student’s behalf. Attorney Cynthia Young represented Capistrano Unified. Executive Director of Alternative Dispute Resolution and Compliance Dr. Kathy Purcell attended the hearing on Capistrano Unified’s behalf.

At hearing, Capistrano Unified objected to further clarification of Issues 2c and 4c because the parties and the ALJ engaged in extensive discussion at the prehearing conference to clarify Issues 2c and 4c, and further clarification is unwarranted. In reviewing Student’s amended complaint and following further clarification by the parties and the ALJ, the ALJ granted Student’s request to further clarify Issues 2c and 4c. Issues 2c and 4c are further clarified as follows:

2c: Did Capistrano Unified’s individualized education program, called IEP, dated March 1, 2023, deny Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, by failing to offer placement in a classroom environment with small group instruction to adequately address Student’s needs in:

i. basic reading skills;

ii. reading fluency;

iii. reading comprehension;

iv. basic writing skills;

v. written expression;

vi. math application tasks;

vii. phonological processing;

viii. orthographic processing;

ix. attention;

x. executive functioning;

xi. peer interactions;

xii. self-advocacy; and xiii. social-emotional skills? 4c: Did Capistrano Unified’s IEP dated May 2, 2024, deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer placement in a classroom environment with small group instruction to adequately address Student’s needs in:

i. basic reading skills;

ii. reading fluency;

iii. reading comprehension;

iv. basic writing skills;

v. written expression;

vi. math application tasks;

vii. phonological processing;

viii. orthographic processing;

ix. attention;

x. executive functioning;

xi. peer interactions;

xii. self-advocacy; and xiii. social-emotional skills? A party must raise any objection with OAH at the start of the hearing on August 12, 2025, if Issues 2c and 4c as described above do not reflect the party’s understanding of the issues as clarified at the hearing. The ALJ will address any objections at the hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings