California OAH special education order · December 21, 2024

Order Dismissing Complaint for Lack of Jurisdiction; Order Denying Motion to Consolidate as Moot

OAH Case No. 2024120652 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz

OAH dismissed Folsom-Cordova Unified's complaint because asking whether it may hold an IEP meeting without Parent or require Student's full-day attendance falls outside OAH's limited special education jurisdiction.

Ruling Jurisdiction

This case went to decision

Student v. Folsom-Cordova Unified School District: Folsom-Cordova Unified prevails on all 21 claims challenging a student's 2022 and 2023 IEPs in an intensive autism class. (2025)

Summary

Folsom-Cordova Unified filed its own due process complaint and asked to consolidate it with Student's earlier case. Its complaint asked whether it could hold an IEP team meeting with or without Parent and whether it could require Student to attend school every day for the full day so it could carry out the IEP. At the prehearing conference, the ALJ raised on his own whether OAH had jurisdiction over these issues. The ALJ found the issues did not involve identification, assessment, placement, provision of a FAPE, Parent's refusal to consent to assessment, or a dispute over the availability of an appropriate program, so he dismissed the District's complaint, closed the case, and denied consolidation as moot.

Why it matters

Districts cannot use due process to get OAH approval for things like holding IEP meetings without a parent or enforcing attendance. Parents facing a district complaint of this kind can argue it falls outside OAH's jurisdiction.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
  • Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
  • Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)
  • Ed. Code, § 56000

Topics

jurisdiction district-filed complaint consolidation iep meeting without parent attendance dismissal

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:

FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

v.

PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2024120652

ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF

JURISDICTION; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONSOLIDATE AS MOOT

DECEMBER 21, 2024

On November 13, 2024, Parent on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, a due process hearing request naming Folsom- Cordova Unified School District. A request for due process hearing is called a complaint. Student’s complaint was assigned OAH case number 2024110401 and is referred to as Student’s Case.

On December 17, 2024, Folsom-Cordova Unified filed a complaint naming Student. Folsom-Cordova Unified’s complaint was assigned OAH case number 2024120652 and is referred to as Folsom-Cordova Unified’s Case.

Folsom-Cordova Unified’s Case raised two issues:

1. May the Folsom-Cordova Unified convene an IEP team meeting with or

without Parent’s attendance?

2. May the Folsom-Cordova Unified require that Student attend school every

day for the entire school day so that the District can implement the IEP? On December 17, 2024, Folsom-Cordova Unified filed a motion to consolidate Student’s Case with Folsom-Cordova Unified’s Case.

On December 20, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Rommel P. Cruz held a prehearing conference in Student’s Case. Administrative Law Judge is called ALJ.

Attorney Michelle Wilkolaski appeared on behalf of Student. Attorneys Rebecca Diddams and Katie Yoshida appeared on behalf of Folsom-Cordova Unified.

In considering Folsom-Cordova Unified’s motion to consolidate at the PHC, the ALJ raised the issue of whether OAH had jurisdiction to address the issues in Folsom-Cordova Unified’s Case. Folsom-Cordova Unified argued the issues raised involved a provision of a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, and are therefore, proper issues before OAH. Student argued the issues as plead were not within OAH’s jurisdiction.

The purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et.

seq.) is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a FAPE, and to protect the rights of those children and their parents. (20 U.S.C. § 1400(d)(1)(A), (B), and (C); see also Ed. Code, § 56000.) A party has a right to present a complaint regarding matters involving:

• the proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment,

or educational placement of a child, or the provision of a FAPE to a child;

• the refusal of a parent or guardian to consent to an assessment of a child;

or

• a disagreement between a parent or guardian and the public education

agency as to the availability of a program appropriate for a child, including the question of financial responsibility.

(20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) The jurisdiction of OAH is limited to these matters. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified School. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000)

223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029.)

Here, the two issues raised in the Folsom-Cordova Unified’s Case are not within OAH’s jurisdiction because the issues do not involve the proposal or refusal to initiate or change the identification, assessment, or educational placement of Student, or the provision of a FAPE to Student. The issues also do not involve a refusal by Parent to consent to an assessment of Student, or a disagreement between Parent and Folsom- Cordova Unified about the availability of an appropriate program for Student.

Accordingly, the issues in Folsom-Cordova Unified Case are dismissed because they are not within OAH’s jurisdiction. As a result, Folsom-Cordova Unified’s complaint is dismissed. All dates in Folsom-Cordova Unified’s case are vacated and the matter in OAH case number 2024120652 is closed.

Further, Folsom-Cordova Unified’s motion to consolidate is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings