California OAH special education order · December 1, 2025
Order Granting Joint Motion to Unexpedite Hearing
OAH Case No. 2025110384 · ALJ Jennifer Kelly
OAH granted the parties' joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student's complaint raised no disciplinary removal or manifestation determination issues that require an expedited hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District (consolidated): Capistrano Unified must fund 87 hours of instruction and an independent behavior assessment; nonpublic school placement upheld. (2026)
Summary
Student and Capistrano filed a joint stipulation to unexpedite the case and vacate the expedited hearing dates, and OAH treated it as a joint motion. OAH explained that an expedited hearing is mandatory only when a complaint challenges a disciplinary change of placement or a manifestation determination. Here Student was not challenging a manifestation determination and was not removed from school for discipline. OAH therefore vacated the expedited dates, and the case will go forward on the regular, non-expedited hearing schedule.
Why it matters
OAH cannot unexpedite or continue a true disciplinary (expedited) claim, even if both sides agree. The parties had to show that no expedited issue was alleged before the expedited dates could be dropped.
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
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A)
- 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2025110384
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO UNEXPEDITE
HEARING
DECEMBER 1, 2025
On November 5, 2025, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Capistrano Unified School District, called Capistrano. On November 12, 2025, OAH issued a Scheduling Order and Notice of Expedited and Non-Expedited Due Process Hearing and Mediation dates. The expedited prehearing conference is scheduled for December 1, 2025, at 3:00 p.m., and the expedited due process hearing is scheduled for December 9, through 11, 2025.
On November 21, 2025, the parties filed a joint stipulation to unexpedite this matter and vacate the expedited dates. OAH interprets the joint stipulation as a joint motion to unexpedite the hearing.
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).) 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.)
Student and Capistrano have demonstrated that no expedited issues were alleged in the complaint. Student is not challenging a manifestation determination review and was not removed from a school placement due to disciplinary matters. Nor does Student allege facts that constitute an appeal pursuant to Section 1415(k)(3).
Therefore, the mandatory provisions of Section 1415(k)(4)(B) for an expedited hearing do not apply. (Molina, supra, 157 F.Supp.3d 1064, 1068-1071.) Accordingly, the expedited hearing dates will be vacated.
ORDER
1. Student and Capistrano’s joint motion to unexpedite this matter is
granted.
2. The expedited dates are vacated.
3. The matter shall proceed on the dates set for the unexpedited hearing,
unless otherwise ordered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Jennifer Kelly Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings