California OAH special education order · June 25, 2025
Order Denying Orcutt Union's Request for Continuance of Expedited Hearing
OAH Case No. 2025060356 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH denied Orcutt Union's request to continue the expedited hearing because the district cited no legal basis for changing the federally required expedited timeline, even though Student consented to an alternative placement.
This case went to decision
Student v. Orcutt Union School District: Orcutt Union's manifestation determinations were wrong; ALJ orders an independent behavior assessment and transition IEP meetings. (2025)
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Orcutt Union School District with both expedited and non-expedited issues. Orcutt asked to continue the expedited hearing. It argued that Student's consent to an alternative placement removed the expedited timeline, and that it had good cause. Student opposed, and OAH denied the request because federal law requires the hearing within 20 school days and a decision within 10 school days after it ends, and Orcutt cited no legal basis for changing those deadlines.
Why it matters
A district cannot easily delay an expedited discipline hearing. Even when a parent agrees to an alternative placement, the strict IDEA expedited timelines still apply unless there is a legal basis to change them.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)
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.
ORCUTT UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060356
ORDER DENYING ORCUTT UNION’S REQUEST FOR
CONTINUANCE OF EXPEDITED HEARING
JUNE 25, 2025
On June 10, 2025, Student file a due process complaint against Orcutt Union School District alleging both expedited and non-expedited issues. On June 10, 2025, the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, issued a Scheduling Order setting hearing dates for both the expedited and non-expedited portions of the case.
On June 17, 2025, Orcutt filed a request to continue the expedited due process hearing with OAH. On June 20, 2025, Student opposed the request.
Orcutt contends the hearing should be continued because Student consented to the alternative placement thereby invalidating the expedited timeline for hearing and decision in an expedited case, and that there is good cause on Orcutt’s behalf to continue the expedited hearing. Student contends the hearing should not be continued because there is no basis to continue an expedited hearing and decision.
The parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with the manifestation determination may appeal the decision by requesting a hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006).) The hearing must be conducted within 20 school days of the date an expedited due process hearing request is filed and a decision must be rendered within 10 school days after the hearing ends. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2) (2006).)
Here, Orcutt cites no legal basis for a continuance of an expedited hearing that would allow modification of the prescribed timeline for an expedited hearing and decision. Further, Orcutt cites no legal basis for Student’s consent to an alternative placement forming the basis to allow modification of the prescribed timeline for an expedited hearing and decision.
The request is denied. All prehearing conference and due process hearing dates are confirmed and will proceed as calendared. Orcutt will have the opportunity to discuss the hearing schedule at the prehearing conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings