California OAH special education order · September 19, 2025

Order Denying Motion for Stay Put Without Prejudice

OAH Case No. 2025070664 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz

OAH denied Student's stay put motion without prejudice because Student did not attach the last agreed-upon IEP, leaving OAH without the evidence it needed to decide the motion.

Denied without prejudice Stay put

This case went to decision

Student v. Fremont Union High School District: Fremont Union must reinstate a student's special education eligibility after exiting her without an IEP meeting; notice claim denied. (2025)

Summary

Student asked OAH to order that the last agreed-upon IEP serve as Student's stay put placement while the case is pending. The District opposed, arguing that Student did not submit evidence of the IEP at issue. OAH agreed that without the IEP as an exhibit it could not decide the motion. It denied the motion without prejudice and said Student may refile it with the supporting evidence.

Why it matters

A stay put motion must include the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP as an exhibit, or OAH cannot determine the student's current placement. Leaving it out can delay protection of the student's placement while the motion is refiled.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
  • 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
  • Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (d)
  • Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
  • Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)

Topics

stay put evidence last agreed-upon iep denied without prejudice motion practice

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.

FREMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2025070664

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

SEPTEMBER 19, 2025

On September 12, 2025, Student filed a motion for stay put arguing that the Office of Administrative Hearings should order the last agreed upon individualized education program, called IEP, be Student’s stay put during the pendency of this litigation. Freemont Unified School District opposed the motion arguing Student failed to submit evidence of the operative IEP at issue in Student’s motion.

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.)

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).)

DISCUSSION

Student failed to file the last agreed upon individualized education program as an exhibit to this motion. Thus, OAH does not have the evidence necessary to decide Student’s motion at this time. Accordingly, Student’s motion for stay put is denied without prejudice. This ruling does not preclude Student from refiling this motion with the relevant evidence to support the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings