California OAH special education order · June 23, 2026
Order Denying Student's Emergency Motion to Enforce Standing No-Contact Order and Cease and Desist for Lack of Jurisdiction
OAH Case No. 2026050505 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH denied Parent's emergency motion to enforce private no-contact and cease-and-desist directives against the District and charter school, finding it lacks jurisdiction over matters not arising under IDEA or California special education law.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tahoe Truckee Unified School District et al.: Tahoe Truckee Unified and Sierra Expeditionary Learning School win on all four claims, including child find, for a first grader. (2026)
Summary
Parent asked OAH to enforce no-contact protocols and cease-and-desist directives that Parent had served on Tahoe-Truckee Unified and Sierra Expeditionary Learning School. Parent also asked OAH to quash a Student Attendance Review Team (SART) process, compel compliance with correspondence restrictions, find bad faith, and recognize a stay-put violation. The respondents did not respond. OAH denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction because its authority covers only IDEA and California special education disputes, not private no-contact or cease-and-desist demands, correspondence protocols, or attendance review procedures. OAH also found that emails, SART participation, and attendance status decisions, as presented, were not a change in placement and did not implicate stay put.
Why it matters
OAH will not enforce private no-contact or cease-and-desist demands or step into attendance (SART) processes unless the conduct is tied to a special education issue. A stay-put claim must show how the conduct changes the student's educational placement or services.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415
- Ed. Code § 56501
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.
TAHOE TRUCKEE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND
SIERRA EXPEDITIONARY LEARNING SCHOOL.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026050505
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO
ENFORCE STANDING NO-CONTACT ORDER AND CEASE
AND DESIST FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
JUNE 23, 2026
On May 19, 2026, Parent on behalf of Student filed a motion titled Emergency Motion To Enforce Standing No-Contact Order And Cease and Desist. The Respondents, Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and Sierra Expeditionary Learning School, did not file a response to this motion.
Here, Parent requests that OAH enforce an alleged standing no-contact protocol and cease and desist directives previously served upon Tahoe-Truckee Unified School District and Sierra Expeditionary Learning School, by Parent in April and May 2026.
Parent did not attach the no-contact protocols and cease and desist directives to the motion, and thus, are unknown to OAH. As discussed below, OAH lacks jurisdiction over these orders so the outcome would have been the same even if attached.
Parent complains that the no-contact protocols and cease and desist directives were violated through a communication exchanged by email; participation in a Student Attendance Review Team, called SART, process; and actions related to Student’s attendance status. Parent requests that OAH quash the SART process, compel compliance with correspondence restrictions, and make findings of bad faith. Parent additionally asserts that the challenged conduct violates Student’s stay-put rights.
OAH’s jurisdiction is limited to matters arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, called IDEA, its implementing regulations, and applicable provisions of the California Education Code governing special education. OAH’s authority does not extend to the general enforcement of private no-contact directives, cease and desist demands, correspondence protocols, attendance review procedures, or other matters that are not shown to arise under the IDEA or California special education law.
Based upon the allegations presented in the motion, Parent failed to demonstrate how these issues fall within OAH’s statutory jurisdiction. Nor had Parent established that the challenged communications and conduct constitute a special education dispute over which OAH may grant relief.
To the extent that Student’s alleged a violation of stay-put-rights, the motion failed to establish a sufficient nexus between the complained of conduct and Student’s educational placement, special education services, or any other rights protected by stay- put provisions of the IDEA. Alleged violations of a no-contact protocol, attendance status determinations, participation in SART proceedings, or isolated email communications, not attached to this motion, do not, as presented in this motion, constitute a change in placement or otherwise implicate stay-put protections.
Accordingly, because the motion as presented and relief requested fall outside of OAH’s jurisdiction, and the motion fails to demonstrate a cognizable claim arising under the IDEA or applicable California special education law, Parent’s motion on behalf of Student is denied for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings