California OAH special education order · March 24, 2025
Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Student's Second Motion to Amend Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2025010272 · ALJ Claire Yazigi
OAH granted Student's second motion to amend, over Capistrano's objection, to add a claim that the district failed to provide educational records within five days. OAH rejected the district's timeliness and merits-based arguments.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District: Capistrano Unified must fund 25 hours of compensatory instruction for missing goals; Prentice School reimbursement denied. (2025)
Summary
Student moved to add Issue 13, alleging Capistrano denied a FAPE by not providing educational records within five days of a written request during the 2024-2025 school year. Capistrano objected. It argued the facts were known earlier, that all records had already been provided, that five days had not yet passed since the latest request, and that amendment would not serve judicial economy. The ALJ granted the amendment, finding the complaint alleged facts as recent as March 17, 2025, and that whether records were produced is a defense to be proven at hearing. The ALJ also noted there is no summary judgment procedure in special education cases, and that the issue involves a school year already in dispute. Timelines were reset, and Student's separate, unopposed motion to continue was found moot.
Why it matters
A district cannot block an amendment by arguing it already complied or that the claim will fail, because OAH treats those as defenses for hearing, not reasons to deny amendment. Parents can add new records-access claims that arise while a case is pending, as long as they file more than five days before hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
People named in the order
- Claire Yazigi, Administrative Law Judge
- Madeline Knutson, Attorney for Student
- Tracy Petznick Johnson, Attorney for Capistrano 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.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025010272
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE
GRANTING STUDENT’S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
MARCH 24, 2025
On March 21, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Claire Yazigi, Office of Administrative Hearings, held a prehearing conference by videoconference. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ. The Office of Administrative Hearings is called OAH. The prehearing conference is called a PHC.
Madeline Knutson, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Tracy Petznick Johnson, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Capistrano Unified School District. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
STUDENT’S SECOND MOTION TO AMEND
On March 18, 2025, Student filed a second motion to amend Student’s complaint.
Specifically, Student sought to add an Issue 13 to the complaint which asked whether Capistrano denied Student a FAPE by failing to provide Student’s educational records within five days upon written request during the 2024-2025 school year. Capistrano filed an objection to amendment on March 21, 2025.
Capistrano objected to amendment on several grounds. First, Capistrano asserted that the facts giving rise to the new issue were known to Student at the time of the filing of the original complaint, as well as at the time of the first amendment, and could have been asserted then. This assertion was not persuasive, because Student’s second amended complaint asserted facts as recent as March 17, 2025, specifically, that counsel for Parents renewed their request for records on that date.
Capistrano also asserted that it had already provided all records responsive to Parents’ records request. This assertion is an evidentiary matter and potential defense to be proven at hearing, and was not a persuasive objection to amendment.
Capistrano also asserted that five days had not passed between Parents’ most recent request for records on March 17, 2025, and the amended complaint; therefore, Student necessarily could not prove Issue 13 regarding that records request. This assertion, in essence, was a request to deny Student’s issue 13 as a matter of law. No summary judgment procedure exists in special education administrative procedure.
Capistrano’s assertion was not a persuasive objection to amendment.
Capistrano argued that no strong interest in judicial economy would be served by amendment. Specifically, because the records requests involved communication between attorneys, Issue 13 would not overlap with witnesses that would likely be called for the other issues. This assertion was not persuasive. Weighed against the age of the case and the fact that Issue 13 involved a school year already at issue, the undesigned granted amendment at PHC.
A 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).)
The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing, was timely. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on March 21, 2025, the date of the PHC. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order.
OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
STUDENT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE DUE PROCESS HEARING
Student field a motion to continue due process hearing on March 18, 2025.
Capistrano filed a non-opposition to Student’s motion to continue that is deemed filed on March 20, 2025. The granting of Student’s second motion to amend rendered Student’s motion to continue moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Claire Yazigi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings