California OAH special education order · February 24, 2026
Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of Jurisdiction as Moot
OAH Case No. 2025100303 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH denied San Francisco's motion to dismiss issues for lack of jurisdiction as moot because it targeted Student's original complaint, which was replaced by an amended complaint.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Francisco Unified School District: San Francisco Unified wins all claims by a deaf-blind student who sought an ASL-fluent intervener and tactile communication services. (2026)
Summary
San Francisco moved to dismiss certain issues in Student's complaint, arguing OAH lacked jurisdiction over them. Student did not respond. On the same day the motion was filed, OAH granted Student's earlier motion to amend, so the first amended complaint became the operative complaint. Because the motion addressed the superseded original complaint, OAH denied it as moot and allowed San Francisco to file a new motion aimed at the amended complaint.
Why it matters
An amended complaint replaces the original, so a motion to dismiss aimed at the old complaint becomes moot. Districts must refile against the operative complaint, and parents should expect a renewed motion.
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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025100303
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS ISSUES FOR LACK
OF JURISDICTION AS MOOT
FEBRUARY 24, 2026
On October 8, 2025, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming San Francsico Unified School District. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
On February 3, 2026, Student filed a Motion to Amend her complaint and a first amended complaint.
On February 10, 2026, San Francisco filed a Motion to Dismiss alleging OAH lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate certain issues alleged in the complaint. Student did not file a response.
Subsequently on February 10, 2026, OAH granted Student’s Motion to Amend.
That Order deemed Student’s first amended complaint filed as of the date of that Order.
Accordingly, Student’s first amended complaint became the operative complaint in this matter.
San Francisco’s motion addressed Student’s initial complaint, and not the operative first amended complaint. Accordingly, San Francisco’s motion is denied as moot. This Order does not prevent San Francisco from filing another motion to dismiss regarding Student’s first amended complaint.
ORDER
1. San Francisco’s Motion to Dismiss is denied as moot.
2. San Francisco may file a motion to dismiss regarding Student’s first
amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings