California OAH special education order · October 9, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put Without Prejudice, Denying Student's Request to Add Issues to His Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2025060681, 2025030762 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion without prejudice because Student did not provide the last consented-to and implemented IEP, and refused to add a new weighted-vest issue days before hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Milpitas Unified School District (consolidated): Milpitas Unified must reimburse a parent's mileage for seven days of missed IEP bus service; 23 other claims denied. (2025)
Summary
Student moved for stay put and also raised new allegations that Milpitas used a weighted vest on Student without Parent's consent. Milpitas objected to adding an issue but said nothing about stay put. OAH denied stay put without prejudice because Student bears the burden of showing the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP and did not submit a copy of it. OAH also denied the request to add the new issue because Student did not move to amend the complaint, but said Student may file the new claims separately; only the issues clarified at the October 2, 2025 prehearing conference will be heard at the October 14, 2025 hearing.
Why it matters
A stay put motion can fail even when the district does not oppose it if the family does not attach the last consented-to and implemented IEP. New claims raised late in a case must be brought through a formal motion to amend or in a new complaint.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code § 56505(d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS INVOLVING:
MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
and
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025060681
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025030762
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST TO ADD
ISSUES TO HIS DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
OCTOBER 9, 2025
On October 7, 2025, Student filed a motion for stay put. Parent also raised new allegations of using a weighted vest on Student without Parental consent. On October 7, 2025, Milpitas filed an objection to Student’s motion to dismiss argument and attempt to add an issue to Student’s pending due process complaint. Milpitas’ response was silent to Student’s motion for stay put.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her 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.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the last agreed upon and implemented individualized educational program, called IEP, placement prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
DISCUSSION
Student did not provide a copy of the last consented to and implemented IEP.
Student carries the burden to demonstrate what was his last consented to and implemented IEP. Student’s motion for stay put is denied without prejudice.
Student did not seek to amend the complaint. Rather, Student simply sought to add a new issue. Student’s request to add additional issues to the on-going due process complaint is denied. Student is free to bring a separate filing on the newly discovered issues. Only Student’s issues as clarified during the prehearing conference on October 2, 2025, will be addressed at the October 14, 2025, due process hearing.
ORDER
1. Student’s motion for stay put is denied without prejudice.
2. Student’s request to add an additional issue is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings