California OAH special education order · June 18, 2025

Order Requiring Additional Evidence to Determine Stay Put

OAH Case No. 2025060462 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl

OAH deferred ruling on Student's stay put motion and ordered Student to file the last signed and implemented IEP by June 26, 2025, because the motion attached no evidence of the last agreed-upon placement.

Ruling Stay put

Summary

Student filed a due process complaint and a stay put motion against Rosedale, which Rosedale opposed. OAH found the motion attached no IEP or other evidence of Student's last agreed-upon and implemented placement, and noted that statements in a due process complaint are not evidence. Student must file a "Stay Put Motion Evidence" document attaching the most recent signed and implemented IEP and any signed amendments by June 26, 2025. Rosedale then has three business days to object to the authenticity or accuracy of that evidence, in no more than five pages. If Student does not file the evidence on time, the motion will be denied.

Why it matters

A stay put motion needs actual evidence, usually a copy of the last signed and implemented IEP and any amendments. Allegations in the complaint will not prove the placement, and a motion without the IEP risks denial.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
  • 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
  • Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
  • Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)
  • Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F.3d 1176
  • Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115

Topics

stay put evidence last implemented iep motion practice due process

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.

ROSEDALE UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060462

ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO

DETERMINE STAY PUT

JUNE 18, 2025

On June 12, 2025, Student filed a request for due process hearing, naming Rosedale Union School District as respondent. That same day, Student filed a motion for stay put. On June 18, 2025, Rosedale filed its opposition to the motion. Later on June 18, 2025, Student filed a reply to Rosedale’s opposition.

APPLICABLE LAW

Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed. Code, § 56505 subd. (d).)

This is referred to as “stay put.” In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP. (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).) All elements of placement are included in the IEP.

Student’s motion seeks an Order of Stay Put, but does not provide evidence of the basis for the Stay Put order sought. Student did not identify or attach the last, signed and implemented IEP to his motion.

For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the placement called for in the student’s most recently implemented individualized education program. (Johnson v. Special Education Hearing Office (2002) 287 F. 3d 1176, 1180.) However, some exceptions apply to that rule. (Johnson, supra, 287 F. 3d at p.

1181; Ms. S. ex rel. G. v. Vashon Island School Dist. (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1115, 1133, [rev’d on other grounds].) In this case, no documents are attached to the Stay Put motion establishing what was included in the last, consented to IEP. Nor has Student provided any alternative evidence of his last agreed upon and implemented IEP placement and services. Statements made in a request for due process hearing are not evidence.

Student is ordered to file a document entitled, “Stay Put Motion Evidence” that attaches a copy of the most recent, signed, and implemented, IEP document, including any signed amendments to that IEP. Student shall have until June 26, 2025, to file the evidence. No further argument accompanying the evidence is necessary. Rosedale shall have three business days from the date those documents are filed and served, to file any objections to the authenticity or accuracy of the evidence filed. Rosedale’s argument shall not exceed five pages, including the caption page. The page limit does not include any attached documents that Rosedale contends are part of the most recent, signed and implemented IEP or amendments to that IEP. Rosedale shall not duplicate the evidence filed by Student or any arguments Rosedale already offered in opposition. All arguments shall be limited to the issue of Stay Put only.

If Student fails to file additional evidence by June 26, 2025, the motion will be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings