California OAH special education order · August 20, 2025
Order Granting Request for Reconsideration and Denying Motion for Stay-Put
OAH Case No. 2025060356 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH reconsidered but again denied Student's stay-put motion, holding that Parent's failure to read the entire June 17, 2025 IEP amendment did not invalidate Parent's consent to its new 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 asked OAH to reconsider its August 13, 2025 order denying stay-put. Student argued that Parent did not give informed consent to the June 17, 2025 addendum IEP. According to Student, Parent believed the amendment only corrected dates from a prior suspension-related IEP, and the listed placement through Santa Maria-Bonita was a mistake or illusory because that district lacks junior high special day classes. Orcutt opposed. The ALJ granted reconsideration and considered the new information, but again denied stay-put because the June 17 IEP was clear about placement, Parent's failure to read the whole document did not undo consent, and Student was represented by counsel when Parent signed.
Why it matters
A parent's signature on an IEP amendment can change the stay-put placement even if the parent believed the amendment made only minor corrections. Parents should read every page of an IEP amendment before signing, especially when represented by counsel.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code, § 11521
- Code Civ. Proc., § 1008
- Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192
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 GRANTING REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
AND DENYING MOTION FOR STAY-PUT
AUGUST 20, 2025
On August 13, 2025, the undersigned Administrative Law Judge issued an Order Denying Student’s Motion for Stay-Put. On August 18, 2025, Student filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On August 20, 2025, Orcutt Union School District filed an opposition.
APPLICABLE LAW
The Office of Administrative Hearings will generally reconsider a ruling upon a showing of new or different facts, circumstances, or law justifying reconsideration, when the party seeks reconsideration within a reasonable period of time, generally within ten days. (See, e.g., Gov. Code, § 11521; Code Civ. Proc., § 1008.) The party seeking reconsideration may also be required to provide an explanation for its failure to previously provide the different facts, circumstances or law. (See Baldwin v. Home Savings of America (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1199-1200.)
DISCUSSION
Student offers new facts and circumstances to support reconsideration of the undersigned ALJ’s August 13, 2025, order denying Student’s request for stay-put.
Specifically, Student asserts the June 17, 2025, IEP upon which the undersigned ALJ found Parent agreed to a placement other than stay-put for the 2025-2026 school year, was not informed consent because Parent was not specifically aware of Orcutt’s changes to its offer of placement for the 2025-2026 school year. Instead, Student asserts that Parent signed, believing that the only change to the June 17, 2025, amendment was correction of the May 23, 2025, addendum IEP end dates for Student’s placement during his suspension. Student speculates that the June 17, 2025, IEP amendment listing Santa Maria-Bonita as the servicing district a mistake, or a typographical because Santa Maria- Bonita only has full inclusion special education services, and does not have special day class junior high school special education placements, as required by the June 17, 2025, addendum IEP, the offer was illusory. However, Orcutt opposed reconsideration of the undersigned ALJ’s August 13, 2025, order denying Student’s motion for stay-put, which specifically found Student’s June 17, 2025, addendum IEP, the agreed upon placement for the 2025-2026 school year. Again, though this may present complicated legal issues between Santa Maria-Bonita and Orcutt, the June 17, 2025, addendum IEP is clear regarding Student’s placement and services.
ORDER
Student’s request for reconsideration is granted. The undersigned ALJ has considered Student’s new information. Upon reconsideration, Student’s request to grant his motion for stay-put is denied. Parent’s failure to read the entire June 17, 2025, amendment IEP, does not invalidate Parent’s consent to its contents. Student was represented by counsel at the time of Parent’s consent. Accordingly, the undersigned ALJ’s August 13, 2025, order denying Student’s motion for stay-put is affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings