California OAH special education order · September 5, 2025
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2025080782 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion without prejudice because Student did not attach a copy of the last agreed upon and implemented IEP and so did not prove what the stay put placement was.
Summary
Student filed a motion for stay put, and Los Angeles Unified School District opposed it. OAH explained that stay put is usually the last agreed upon and implemented IEP before the dispute arose, and that Student has the burden of showing what that IEP is. Student's five-page motion did not include a copy of that IEP, so Student did not meet the burden. The motion was denied without prejudice, which means Student may file it again.
Why it matters
A stay put motion should attach the last agreed upon and implemented IEP, because the moving party must prove what that placement is. Leaving it out can lead to a quick denial. Because this denial was without prejudice, the motion can be refiled with the IEP attached.
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
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025080782
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT WITHOUT
PREJUDICE
SEPTEMBER 5, 2025
On August 19, 2025, Student filed a motion for stay put. On August 22, 2025, Los Angeles Unified School District filed an opposition.
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’s motion for stay put was a five-page document that failed to include a copy of the last agreed upon and implemented IEP. It is Student’s burden to demonstrate what educational program is the last agreed upon and implemented IEP;
and she failed to meet her burden.
The motion for stay put is denied without prejudice.
ORDER
Student’s motion for stay put is denied without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings