California OAH special education order · October 15, 2025
Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference
OAH Case No. 2025030050 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH set six FAPE issues covering 2022-2025 for a videoconference hearing starting October 28, 2025, and denied without prejudice the parties' joint oral request to continue.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Alamitos Unified School District: Los Alamitos Unified prevails on all six claims brought by a graduated student with autism; no relief ordered. (2026)
Summary
After a prehearing conference, ALJ Charles Marson framed six issues for hearing against Los Alamitos. The issues cover 2022-2023 through 2024-2025 and include child find and assessment, adequacy of services, IEP implementation, data retention, Parent participation, and excluding Student from IEP meetings after she turned 18. The hearing was set by Zoom for October 28 to 30, 2025, and will be open to the public at Student's request. The parties jointly asked orally for a continuance because another hearing between them was still underway. The ALJ denied that request without prejudice and encouraged them to file a written motion.
Why it matters
The order shows how an ALJ may reword issues without changing their substance, and that parties must object in writing before hearing if an issue is misstated. Continuance requests should be filed as written motions rather than raised orally at the prehearing conference.
Key authority cited
- J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431
- Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (e)(7)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g)
People named in the order
- Charles Marson, Administrative Law Judge
- Tracy Petznick Johnson, Attorney for Los Alamitos 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.
LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025030050
ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING CONFERENCE FOR
HEARING BY VIDEOCONFERENCE
OCTOBER 15, 2025
On August 29, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Charles Marson, 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.
Student’s Parent, an Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Student. Tracy Petznick Johnson, Attorney at Law, appeared on behalf of Los Alamitos Unified School District. The PHC was recorded. Based upon discussion with the parties, the ALJ issues the following order:
HEARING DATES, TIMES, AND LOCATION
DUE PROCESS HEARING
The hearing will take place on October 28, 29, and 30, 2025, and continue day to day at the discretion of the ALJ. The hearing shall begin at 9:30 AM each day and generally end at 3:30 PM, unless otherwise ordered. The parties anticipate it will take three to five days to complete the hearing. Additional hearing dates will be discussed with the ALJ during the hearing if necessary.
HEARING LOCATION
OAH is authorized to conduct due process hearings by videoconference or telephone. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) OAH will conduct the due process hearing by videoconference using the Zoom application. Unless otherwise ordered, participants are required to appear by videoconference using computer or device with video capability and Zoom.
The parties shall immediately notify all potential witnesses of the hearing dates and shall subpoena witnesses, if necessary, to ensure that the witnesses will appear to testify. A party’s failure to notify or subpoena a witness to testify will not be considered good cause to continue the hearing. Instructions for issuing and responding to subpoenas and optional forms for subpoenas can be found on the website at https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Case-Types/Special- Education/Forms/Subpoenas?search=special%20education%20subpoena.
ISSUES AND PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
The ALJ has slightly altered and reorganized the statement of some issues as allowed by the holdings in J.W. v. Fresno Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2010) 626 F.3d 431, 442-443, and Ford v. Long Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2002) 291 F.3d 1086, 1090 (But see M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189,1196, fn. 2 [dictum].). No change in substance has been made. A party believing that an issue has been misstated or improperly omitted shall promptly file a notice in writing stating its concern, referring to supporting portions of the complaint, and specifying the prejudice to the presentation of the party’s case that would be caused by proceeding on the current wording of the issue(s). The objecting party must allow enough time for the issue to be decided before the hearing. No motion to amend the issues may be made for the first time at the hearing.
In this Order a free appropriate public education is called a FAPE, and an individualized education program is called an IEP. The issues at the due process hearing, and proposed resolutions, as alleged in the complaint and clarified by the parties and the ALJ during the PHC, are:
ISSUES
1. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school years 2022-2023,
2023-2024, and 2024-2025, because it failed to identify, locate and assess Student in the areas of functional behavior, educationally related mental health, speech and language, transition, executive functioning, and academics?
2. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school years 2022-2023,
2023-2024, and 2024-2025 by offering legally insufficient services and supports in the areas of specialized academic instruction, mental health, speech and language, and transition?
3. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school years 2022-2023,
2023-2024, and 2024-2025 by materially failing to implement parts of every governing IEP during those years?
4. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school years 2022-2023,
2023-2024, and 2024-2025 by failing to retain data on Student’s goal progress, services and supports?
5. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school years 2022-2023,
2023-2024, and 2024-2025, by denying Parents meaningful participation in the IEP process, specifically by disregarding or denying their requests for programming and for data on Student’s goals and services?
6. Did Los Alamitos deny Student a FAPE in the school year 2024-2025 by
excluding her from her IEP team meetings once she turned 18?
RESOLUTIONS REQUESTED
The resolutions requested by Student include reimbursement, compensatory education, private tutoring, and educationally related mental health services.
Los Alamitos filed its response to Student’s complaint on March 13, 2025. (M.C.
v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist., supra, 858 F.3d at pp. 1199-1200.)
EXHIBITS
The parties shall serve their exhibits on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). The parties shall upload their exhibits electronically according to the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically.
Timely uploading of electronic hearing exhibits five business days before the first day of hearing constitutes that party’s timely exchange of evidence in compliance with Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7). If further assistance is needed, please contact OAH at OAHSEOps@dgs.ca.gov.
Except for good cause shown, or unless used solely for rebuttal or impeachment, any exhibit not timely exchanged as required by Education Code section 56505, subdivision (e)(7) shall not be admitted into evidence at the hearing unless the ALJ rules that it is admissible.
IDENTIFYING EXHIBITS AND PAGE NUMBERS
Each exhibit must be identified by a letter and number. Student must use the letter S before the number to identify Student’s exhibits. Los Alamitos must use the letter D before the number to identify its exhibits. For example, S-1 means Student’s exhibit 1 and D-1 means Los Alamitos’s exhibit 1. A cover sheet with this identifying letter and number should be the first page of each exhibit. The electronic evidence program will automatically number the exhibits and additional page numbering or bates stamping should not be added.
CONTENT
Each exhibit must consist of one document. Separate documents may not be combined into one exhibit. Emails or letters may be consolidated into one exhibit if they are part of a single chain of messages. Exhibits should be in chronological order.
Parties should include a resume or curriculum vita for each witness expected to testify as an expert.
Los Alamitos’s exhibits must include a copy of the school calendar for each school year in question.
Electronic copies of exhibits filed with OAH shall be filed by 5:00 PM at least five business days before the first day of hearing. Please refer to the General Order OAH issued with the Scheduling Order that contains the Order Setting Procedures for Filing Exhibits Electronically. It includes instructions for how to file exhibits electronically.
Beginning three business days before the hearing, the electronic evidence system will not allow parties to upload exhibits unless permitted by the ALJ during the hearing at the ALJ’s discretion.
WITNESSES
The parties shall serve their lists of witnesses on each other in compliance with Education Code section 56505. No party shall be permitted to call any witnesses not timely disclosed except for good cause shown, supported by written declaration under penalty of perjury, and at the discretion of the ALJ.
Parties are responsible for ensuring that all participants are familiar with and follow the Instructions for Joining the Online Due Process Hearing provided with this Order. Participants who have not previously used the Zoom application, may find informative instructions by visiting, Getting Started with Zoom at https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/categories/200101697.
The parties are responsible for ensuring that witnesses join the virtual hearing room at the designated date and time to testify. Witnesses are required to join the due process hearing by computer and appear by videoconference unless they do not have the necessary computer equipment.
The parties are responsible for producing their own witnesses unless otherwise ordered by the ALJ. Parties shall make witnesses under their control reasonably available. The parties must schedule their witnesses to avoid delays in the hearing and to minimize or eliminate the need for calling witnesses out of order.
The ALJ has discretion to limit the number of witnesses and the time allowed for testimony. Education Code, section 56505.1, subdivision (h), empowers the ALJ to set a reasonable limit on the length of the hearing.
MEET AND CONFER
The parties are encouraged to review and shorten their witness and exhibit lists before the hearing. Evidence may be excluded if it is repetitive, cumulative, or insufficiently probative to justify the time it would take to hear.
The parties are ordered to meet and confer no later than the close of business on October 23, 2025, to discuss scheduling witnesses and how much time each witness will take. The parties shall discuss any issues related to counsel and witnesses appearing by videoconference for hearing, electronically viewing exhibits during the hearing, and subpoenas, if any. The parties should attempt to eliminate duplicate exhibits from their hearing exhibits. The parties shall discuss whether they can produce a written stipulation as to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and the authenticity and admissibility of documents to shorten the length of time needed for the hearing.
As part of the meet and confer process, Los Alamitos shall inform Student which proposed witnesses are its employees. Los Alamitos shall also identify the witnesses on Student’s list that require a subpoena. Los Alamitos may agree to accept service for a witness under its control or provide Student with the witness’s most recent contact information.
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION FORM
Both parties have an ongoing obligation to ensure that OAH has current information on the Participant Information Form filed with OAH and shall file an updated Form as necessary. The Participant Information Form is not served upon the opposing party. The ongoing obligation to ensure that the Participant Information Form filed with OAH is current does not change the parties’ statutory obligation to timely disclose their witnesses to the other party(s) at least five business days prior to hearing.
The parties must file an updated Participant Information Form to inform OAH of any changes, additions, or deletions, including the required information no later than 5:00 PM at least two business days before the first day of hearing.
Any contact information provided shall be used for the limited purpose of issuing subpoenas or for contacting a witness to attend the hearing. Any contact information shall not be disclosed to any other person.
EVIDENCE PRESENTATION
In an administrative proceeding, the burden of proof is ordinarily on the party requesting the hearing. (Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 62.) In this case Student requested the hearing and bears the burden of proof. Student’s case-in-chief shall be presented first, followed by Los Alamitos’s, unless otherwise ordered.
WITNESS LISTS
The parties must provide a joint proposed witness list to the ALJ on the first day of hearing. The list should include the first and last name of the witness, which party is calling the witness to testify, and include dates and time estimates of each witness’s expected testimony. In the event an agreement cannot be reached, each party shall prepare a separate written list. Los Alamitos must have witnesses available in case there is no agreement.
At the beginning of the hearing, the ALJ and the parties will discuss the length of time anticipated for each witness and scheduling issues for individual witnesses. The ALJ will finalize the witness schedule. Parties must be prepared at the end of each day to discuss the witnesses to be presented the next day and the estimated time for the testimony of each witness.
SCOPE OF WITNESS EXAMINATION
Each witness will be called to testify only once, except for rebuttal purposes. All parties must examine a witness on all issues when the witness is first called to testify.
Requiring a witness to appear only once takes priority over the order in which parties present their case-in-chief.
AUDIO ONLY OR TELEPHONIC TESTIMONY
Whether a witness may appear by audio only or telephone instead of videoconference is a matter within the discretion of the ALJ. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3082, subd. (g).) Any party seeking to present a witness by audio only or telephone shall request permission to do so before the hearing. Any party seeking to present a witness who cannot access exhibits electronically must inform the ALJ at the beginning of the hearing. At present neither party anticipates presenting a witness by audio only or telephone.
ELECTRONIC RECORDINGS
AUDIO RECORDING
A party may request permission to make an audio recording of the hearing.
Permission to make an audio recording is subject to the ALJ’s discretion and based upon the following conditions:
1. the OAH recording is the only official recording;
2. the parties shall turn their recording devices on and off at the same time
that the ALJ is on and off the record to avoid recording conversations while off the record;
3. operation of a party’s recording mechanism will not be allowed to delay
the hearing;
4. a party’s recording may not be given, provided or played to a witness, or
potential witness;
5. the recording is subject to the same confidentiality as the due process
hearing; and
6. participants shall not take screenshots of the videoconference nor share or
publish any portion of the videoconference or audio recording.
Neither party has made a request to audio record the hearing. If either party wants to record the hearing, the request must be made before the hearing.
VIDEO RECORDING
No party, witness or anyone else may videorecord any part of the proceedings or stream live through any means.
RECORDINGS AS EXHIBITS
Recordings may not be uploaded electronically without the ALJ’s permission. The ALJ has discretion to admit or exclude evidence in the form of a recording. Any request to submit a recording shall be considered at the time of hearing. At present neither party anticipates offering a recording in evidence.
The ALJ may grant or deny the request or grant the request subject to certain conditions. The party offering the recording must establish that all or a part of the recording is relevant. The ALJ may request a transcript of the portion of the recording requested or have the party offering the recording to provide an exact identifiable portion of the recording the party seeks to admit. The identities of any person speaking on the portion of the tape being introduced must be established. An ALJ may allow the opposing party to offer additional portions of a recording to establish the context, or to rebut, the recording.
COMPENSATORY EDUCATION OR REIMBURSEMENT
Any party seeking reimbursement for expenditures shall present admissible evidence of these expenditures, or a stipulation to the amount of the expenditures. A party seeking compensatory education should provide evidence regarding the type, amount, duration, and need for any requested compensatory education. Documents offered as evidence to support a request for reimbursement must be separated by vendor.
MOTIONS
At the PHC, the parties made a joint oral motion for a continuance based upon their involvement in an earlier-filed matter in which the due process hearing was underway and continuing. The ALJ denied the motion without prejudice and encouraged the parties to file a written motion.
No other prehearing motions are pending or contemplated. Any motion that was not filed three business days before the PHC, shall be supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury establishing good cause why the motion was not timely filed.
STIPULATIONS
Stipulations to pertinent facts, contentions, resolutions and authenticity and admissibility of documents are encouraged. Any proposed stipulation shall be submitted to the assigned ALJ in writing prior to the start of the hearing.
CONDUCT OF PARTICIPANTS AND HEARING ROOM DECORUM
All participants to the videoconference should observe the same decorum as in an in-person due process hearing. Participants must conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner at all times. Cellular phones, telephones and computer notifications must be shut off or set to silent during the hearing unless the ALJ grants permission otherwise. Participants should appear from a private location, unless otherwise ordered. Participants should take reasonable efforts to minimize background noise and maintain adequate room lighting. Use of virtual background images are at the discretion of the ALJ. Witnesses are prohibited from reading exhibits, documents, notes, text messages, telephones or computers while testifying, unless permitted to do so by the ALJ. The parties, their representative and witnesses are prohibited from passing notes to, exchanging electronic messages with, or signaling the witness in any way while the witness is testifying.
LANGUAGE INTERPRETERS AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS
Neither party requested a language interpreter or any other reasonable accommodation. A party or participant in this case, such as a witness, requiring reasonable accommodation to participate in the hearing may contact OAH at (916) 263-0880, or send an email to OAHADA@dgs.ca.gov as soon as the need is known. The e-mail should have “Request for Accommodation” in the Subject Line.
Additional information concerning requests for reasonable accommodation is available on OAH’s website at: https://www.dgs.ca.gov/OAH/Services/Page-Content/Office-of- Administrative-Hearings-Services-List-Folder/Request-Reasonable-Accommodations- for-OAH-Legal-Proceedings.
HEARING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
The Student has requested an open hearing. The hearing will be open to the public.
Either party may forward the hearing invitation to observers. Observers will only be admitted to the hearing at the beginning of the hearing day and after the lunch break. Observers do not need to identify themselves but must have respectful usernames when joining the hearing. Any prospective witness may not observe the hearing until their testimony is completed and with the ALJ’s permission. This restriction does not apply to the District’s representative.
By choosing an open hearing, Student is on notice that highly sensitive personal information will be seen and heard by observers.
The following Order applies to observers:
1. Microphone and video must always be off, unless otherwise ordered by the
ALJ.
2. Hearing observers will not be allowed to record, photograph, or broadcast the
hearing. (California Rules of Court, rule 1.150.) Any person who suspects a member of the public of violating this rule, must immediately report the violation to the ALJ.
3. An ALJ may exclude persons whose actions impede the orderly conduct of the
hearing, restrict attendance because of the physical limitations of the hearing facility, or take other action to promote due process or the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Cal. Code Regs., Tit. 1, § 1030, subd. (e).) Further, an ALJ may order an open hearing to be closed or make other protective orders to the extent necessary or proper to ensure a fair hearing in the circumstances of the case, including to protect a minor witness or a witness with a developmental disability. (Gov. Code § 11425.20, subd. (a).)
4. Observers associated with one of the parties, including staff members, shall be
visible on camera when observing or listening to the hearing.
An ALJ may restrict attendance because of the physical limitations of the hearing facility or take other action to promote due process or the orderly conduct of the hearing. (Tit. 1, Cal. Code Regs., § 1030.) Government Code, section 11425.20 empowers the ALJ to order an open hearing to be closed or make other protective orders to the extent necessary or proper to ensure a fair hearing in the circumstances of the particular case.
SETTLEMENT
The parties are encouraged to continue working together to reach an agreement before the due process hearing. The parties shall inform OAH in writing immediately if they reach a settlement or otherwise resolve the dispute before the scheduled hearing.
In addition, if a settlement is reached within five days of the scheduled start of the due process hearing, the parties shall also inform OAH of the settlement by telephone at (916) 263-0880. At the same time, the parties should send the signature page of the signed agreement or a letter withdrawing the case to OAH by visiting OAH Secure e-file at https://www.applications.dgs.ca.gov/oah/oahsftweb.
If a full and final written settlement agreement is reached after 4:00 PM the day prior to hearing, the parties shall leave a voicemail message regarding the settlement at (916) 274-6035. The parties should also leave contact information such as cellular phone numbers of each party or counsel for each party.
Dates for hearing will not be cancelled until the letter of withdrawal or signature page of the signed agreement has been received and processed by OAH. If an agreement in principle is reached, the parties should plan to attend the scheduled hearing unless different arrangements have been agreed upon by the assigned ALJ. The assigned ALJ will check for messages before the hearing.
If the matter settles subject to board approval, in addition to a signed copy of the signature page of the settlement agreement, the parties shall provide the date of the next board meeting. The hearing dates will not be cancelled without this information.
FAILURE TO COMPLY
The failure to comply with this Order may result in the exclusion of evidence or other sanctions.
ORDER INCLUDES ALL RULINGS
This Order includes all rulings made at the prehearing conference. Any discussion and conversation not referenced in this Order is not binding on the ALJ conducting the hearing and may not be relied upon by the parties. The parties should be aware that, at hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing has discretion to reconsider any part of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings
