California OAH special education order · February 21, 2025
Order Denying Request for Entry of Default
OAH Case No. 2025020023 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH denied Student's request for default against Fremont Union. Nothing in the law bars a district from the hearing for a late response, and the late response did not delay the hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Fremont Union High School District: Fremont Union High School District prevails; ALJ finds no denial of FAPE for not offering one-to-one ABA instruction. (2025)
Summary
Student asked OAH to enter a default and bar Fremont Union from taking part in the due process hearing because the district filed its response to the complaint late. Fremont Union filed its response 19 days after service, on the same day Student filed the default request. OAH denied the request. The March 2025 hearing dates were not delayed, and no law allows a district to be shut out of the hearing as a penalty for a late response. Even when a district never responds, the remedy is to continue the hearing if needed and order a response, and OAH may shift the cost of any delay to the district.
Why it matters
Parents cannot win by default because a district answered late. The available remedies are an order requiring a response and, if the late response delays the hearing, shifting the cost of that delay to the district.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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.
FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025020023
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
FEBRUARY 21, 2025
On January 30, 2025, Student filed a request for due process hearing, or complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, or OAH, naming Fremont Union High School District.
On February 18, 2025, Student filed a request for entry of default, on the basis that Fremont Union had not filed a timely response to the complaint. Student requests that OAH prevent Fremont Union from participating in the due process hearing.
On February 18, 2025, Fremont Union filed a response to Student’s complaint, after Student filed the request for entry of default.
On February 20, 2025, Fremont Union filed an opposition to Student’s request for entry of default and Student filed a response to Fremont Union’s opposition.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, requires a local educational agency to respond to a due process complaint within 10 days of receiving the complaint, if the agency has not sent prior written notice regarding the subject matter of the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I).) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a due process hearing cannot proceed until the local educational agency files a response to the complaint. (M.C. v Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.) The Ninth Circuit reasoned that a response to the complaint provides notice of the issues in dispute and binds the answering party to a position. (Ibid.) In circumstances where the local educational agency fails to file a timely response, resulting in delay of the hearing, OAH may shift the cost of the delay to the agency, regardless of who is ultimately the prevailing party at hearing.
Here, Fremont Union filed a response to the complaint 19 days after Student served the complaint. The hearing, set for March 18 through 20, 2025, has not been delayed by the late filed response. Nothing in the law requires, or even suggests, that a local educational agency be precluded from participating in a due process hearing as a penalty for filing a late response to a complaint. Even where the local educational agency fails to file any response, the remedy is to continue the hearing, if necessary, and order the agency to file a response. Other arguments raised by the parties, such as mootness, summary judgment, and dismissal, had no impact on the determination of these issues and are, therefore, not addressed in this Order.
Accordingly, Student’s motion for entry of default is denied. The matter shall proceed on the dates currently scheduled.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cole Dalton Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings