California OAH special education order · February 10, 2026
Order Granting Student Leave to File Second Amended Complaint
OAH Case No. 2025120006 · ALJ Ted Mann
OAH granted Student leave to file a second amended complaint over the opposition of two nonpublic schools, because the motion was filed more than five days before hearing; all timelines reset.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Los Angeles Unified did not have to hold manifestation determination reviews; absences and a psychiatric hold were not disciplinary removals. (2026)
Summary
Student asked to file a second amended complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District. Casa Pacifica opposed, and Oak Grove joined the opposition. Both had already been dismissed because they are not local educational agencies. OAH granted the motion because it was filed more than five days before the hearing, deemed the amended complaint filed on the date of the order, and reset all timelines. OAH also noted that the complaint did not list issues in an identifiable way and required Student to state precise issues at the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
OAH readily allows timely amendments, but each one restarts the hearing timelines. A complaint that buries its issues in hundreds of pages will have to be narrowed into a clear list, and parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help frame the issues.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(ii)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c)
- Ed. Code, § 56501.5, subd. (d)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
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 2025120006
ORDER GRANTING STUDENT LEAVE TO FILE SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT
FEBRUARY 10, 2026
On November 24, 2025, Student filed a request for due process hearing, referred to as a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Los Angeles Unified School District, Casa Pacifica Camino a Casa, Oak Grove Center Jack Weaver, and individual respondents. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
On December 9, 2025, OAH dismissed individually named respondents for lack of jurisdiction. CASA Pacifica alleges its proper name is Casa Pacifica Centers for Children and Families. Oak Grove Center alleges its proper name is Oak Grove Institute Foundation, Inc.
On December 26, 2025, CASA Pacifica filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, alleging that Casa Pacifica is a certified nonpublic school, over which OAH lacks jurisdiction. On December 31, 2025, Student filed a motion for leave to amend and a first amended complaint. On January 7, 2026, OAH granted Student’s motion for a first amended complaint, finding CASA Pacifica’s motion to dismiss was moot because of the new filing.
On January 22, 2026, CASA Pacifica filed another motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction based on Student’s first amended complaint. On January 6, 2026, Oak Grove filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. On February 9, 2026, OAH issued an order granting the motions to dismiss CASA Pacifica and Oak Grove as parties over which OAH does not have jurisdiction, on the grounds these respondents are not local educational agencies.
On February 4, 2026, Student filed a motion for leave to amend and a proposed second amended complaint. On February 5, 2026, Casa Pacifica filed an Opposition to Student’s Second Motion to Amend. On February 6, 2026, Oak Grove filed a notice of joinder in CASA Pacifica’s opposition to Student’s second amended complaint.
An amended complaint may be filed when the other party consents in writing and is given the opportunity to resolve the complaint through a resolution session, or when the hearing officer grants permission. The hearing officer may grant permission at any time more than five days before the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C.
§1415(c)(2)(E)(i).) The filing of an amended complaint restarts the applicable timelines for the due process hearing. (20 U.S.C. §1415(c)(2)(E)(ii).)
Student’s proposed second amended complaint alleges additional issues for hearing. However, Student has not alleged issues in an identifiable list, causing the reader to peruse through hundreds of pages to determine what is at issue in this matter.
Student will be required to state precise issues for hearing at the time of the prehearing conference, as stated in the Scheduling Order. OAH provides unrepresented parties with mediator assistance for this and other purposes.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS: A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request or in preparation for the prehearing conference.
The motion to amend was filed more than five days prior to the due process hearing. Therefore, it is timely and is granted. The amended complaint shall be deemed filed on the date of this order. All applicable timelines shall be reset as of the date of this order. (34 C.F.R. § 300.510(c); Ed. Code, § 56501.5, subd. (d).) OAH will issue a scheduling order with the new dates.
A separate order will issue dismissing CASA Pacifica and Oak Grove as parties to the second amended complaint, as OAH has no jurisdiction over parties that are not local educational agencies, as further defined in the Order of dismissal issued on January 10, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ted Mann Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings