California OAH special education order · September 12, 2025
Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing
OAH Case No. 2025081135 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH denied the Academy's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint, alleging missed manifestation determinations and unlawful disability-related suspensions, raised discipline claims that must be heard on an expedited schedule.
Summary
The Academy asked OAH to unexpedite the case and vacate the expedited dates. It argued the complaint never asked for an expedited hearing, was not pled as a discipline appeal, and did not seek a return to Student's prior placement. Student filed a notice of non-opposition, but OAH denied the motion anyway. The complaint alleged repeated suspensions, removal for the last three weeks of school, at least two manifestation determinations that should have been held, and suspensions for disability-related conduct, and it asked to expunge those records. Together these allegations state discipline claims under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k), so the hearing must proceed on September 23, 24, and 25, 2025.
Why it matters
OAH looks at what a complaint actually alleges, not how it is labeled, and the parties' agreement alone cannot unexpedite a case that raises discipline or manifestation determination claims. A family that does not want an expedited hearing must withdraw or dismiss the expedited issues.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(c)(2)
- Molina v. Bd. of Educ. of Los Lunas Schools (D.N.M. 2016) 157 F.Supp.3d 1064
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.
ORANGE COUNTY ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AND ARTS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025081135
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO UNEXPEDITE HEARING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2025
On August 29, 2025, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, known as a complaint, against the Orange County Academy of Sciences and Arts. On that same day, based on issues asserted in the complaint, the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, issued a Scheduling Order and Notice of Expedited and Non- Expedited Due Process Hearing and Mediation. The Scheduling Order set this matter for expedited mediation on September 11, 2025, expedited prehearing conference on September 15, 2025, and expedited hearing for September 23, 24, and 25, 2025.
On September 10, 2025, the Academy filed a motion to unexpedite this matter and vacate the expedited dates. On September 11, 2025, Student filed a notice of non- opposition to the motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
A parent of a child with a disability who disagrees with any decision by a school district regarding a change in educational placement of the child based upon a violation of a code of student conduct, or who disagrees with a manifestation determination made by the district, may request and is entitled to receive an expedited due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.532(a) (2006), All subsequent references to the Code of Federal Regulations are to the 2006 version.) An expedited due process hearing before OAH must occur within 20 school days of the date the complaint requesting the hearing is filed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(4)(B); 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.532(c)(2).) The procedural right to an expedited due process hearing is mandatory and does not authorize OAH to make exceptions or grant continuances of expedited matters. (Ibid.) A matter can only be unexpedited or continued if no issue is alleged that is subject to an expedited hearing, if the student withdraws the issues in the complaint that triggered the expedited hearing, or if the student elects to challenge the change of placement under title 20, section 1415, subdivision (b)(6)(A) and not subdivision (k). (Molina v. Bd. of Educ. of Los Lunas Schools (D.N.M. 2016) 157 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068-1071.)
DISCUSSION
The Academy argues that the matter should not have been expedited because the complaint does not request an expedited hearing, was not pled as an appeal under subsection (k)(3)(A), and does not seek reinstatement in Student’s previous placement.
Student alleges that he was repeatedly suspended and removed from school, and not allowed to attend school for the last three weeks of the school year. The alleged conduct giving rise to his suspensions would clearly violate a code of student conduct, but the Academy did not hold a manifestation determination. Student characterizes this failure as a denial of a free appropriate public education, not a denial of rights under subsection (k) of Title 20 of the United States Code.
However, the complaint sufficiently alleges a denial of rights under subsection (k), whether intended or not. It alleges that at least two manifestation determinations should have been held, and that the failure to do so was a denial of his right to a free appropriate public education. He alleges that at least some of the suspensions were for disability-related conduct and were “unlawful.” He requests that the records of those suspensions be expunged. These allegations, collectively, adequately allege a denial of Student’s rights under subsection (k) of Title 20 of the United States Code, and consequently must be heard by OAH on an expedited schedule.
Nothing in this order prevents Student from withdrawing or dismissing the expedited issues pled in the complaint.
ORDER
1. The motion to unexpedite the expedited hearing dates is denied.
2. The expedited hearing shall proceed on the expedited issues as scheduled,
on September 23, 24, and 25, 2025.
Charles Marson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings