California OAH special education order · July 13, 2026
Order Dismissing Case Without Prejudice
OAH Case No. 2026051000 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH dismissed Student's case without prejudice after Student's attorney deliberately skipped the prehearing conference to pursue a peremptory challenge, finding her noncompliance with OAH orders willful and no good cause shown.
Summary
OAH issued an order to show cause why Student's case should not be dismissed after Student's attorney failed to appear at the prehearing conference. Baldwin Park's peremptory challenge had led to reassignment and a new start time. At the OSC hearing, Student's attorney admitted she had not read OAH's orders or emails and had not submitted the required participant form. She also admitted she knew of the rescheduled conference and was available, but chose not to appear because she planned to challenge the new ALJ. OAH found the noncompliance willful, found no good cause, dismissed the complaint without prejudice, and vacated all hearing dates.
Why it matters
A planned peremptory challenge does not excuse skipping a scheduled prehearing conference, and a peremptory challenge filed after the conference begins will be denied. Counsel who ignore OAH orders and emails risk having their client's case dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Key authority cited
- Gov. Code § 11455.10
- Ed. Code § 56500.1
- Ed. Code § 56502
People named in the order
- Chris Butchko, Administrative Law Judge (originally assigned; peremptorily challenged by Baldwin Park)
- Paul H. Kamoroff, Administrative Law Judge (reassigned; signed order)
- Diana Renteria, Student's attorney
- Sundee Johnson, Baldwin Park's attorney at PHC
- Gabrielle Ortiz, Baldwin Park's attorney at OSC hearing
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.
BALDWIN PARK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026051000
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
JULY 13, 2026
On May 20, 2026, Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Baldwin Park Unified School District, called Baldwin Park. OAH set the prehearing conference, called PHC, for June 29, 2026, at 1:00 PM, and the due process hearing for July 7, 2026, through July 9, 2026, and assigned the matter to Administrative Law Judge Chris Butchko. The Administrative Law Judge is called an ALJ.
Baldwin Park filed a peremptory challenge of ALJ Butchko on June 29, 2026.
On June 29, 2026, at approximately 1:10 PM, OAH informed the parties Baldwin Park’s challenge was granted, the case was reassigned to ALJ Paul Kamoroff, and that the June 29, 2026 PHC would begin at 2:00 PM. ALJ Kamoroff sent electronic invitations to the parties for the PHC. At approximately 1:20 PM, Student’s representative called OAH and stated their plan to file a peremptory challenge to ALJ Kamoroff.
On June 29, 2026, at 2:00 PM, ALJ Kamoroff held the PHC by videoconference.
Attorney Sundee Johnson appeared for Baldwin Park. No appearance was made for Student. OAH and Baldwin Park’s attorney each contacted Student’s attorney several times by telephone to remind her the PHC was being convened, but Student’s attorney failed to appear. Following the PHC on June 29, 2026, OAH issued an Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Student’s failure to appear at the PHC, called OSC, and set the OSC hearing for July 10, 2026, at 10:00 AM. OAH also continued the PHC to July 10, 2026, immediately following the PHC, and the due process hearing to July 21, 2026, through July 23, 2026, if the case was not dismissed at the OSC hearing.
At 2:28 PM on June 29, 2026, Student filed a notice of peremptory challenge to ALJ Kamoroff. That same day, OAH denied the peremptory challenge because it was not filed before the PHC.
On July 10, 2026, OAH held the OSC hearing. Attorney Diana Renteria represented Student. Attorney Gabrielle Ortiz represented Baldwin Park. OAH recorded the OSC. Baldwin Park filed a declaration prior to the OSC. Student did not file any pleadings prior to the OSC. OAH received oral argument during the OSC hearing.
Attorney Renteria appeared at the OSC hearing unprepared. She acknowledged that she had not reviewed the June 29, 2026 OAH OSC Order, nor the June 29, 2026 OAH Order denying Student's peremptory challenge. Renteria represented that she first became aware of the OSC hearing on the morning it was held and admitted that she had not reviewed emails sent to the email addresses designated as counsel of record, diana@autismlaws.com.
Renteria further admitted that she had not reviewed OAH's May 26, 2026 Scheduling Order and had failed to submit the required Participant Information Form, through which she could have provided additional or updated contact information.
During the OSC hearing, Renteria initially misrepresented that she was unaware the PHC had been rescheduled to 2:00 p.m. She subsequently acknowledged that both OAH and Baldwin Park's counsel had informed her, before and during the PHC, of the revised PHC time. Renteria further admitted that she was available to appear at the PHC but deliberately elected not to do so based on her intention to file a peremptory challenge to the assigned ALJ.
The Administrative Procedure Act governs proceedings before OAH. Government Code section 11455.10 authorizes contempt sanctions for disobedience of, or resistance to, a lawful order. California Education Code sections 56500.1 et seq. establish the procedural safeguards applicable to special education due process hearings, and Education Code section 56502 prescribes the mandatory timelines and procedural requirements governing such proceedings absent an approved continuance.
Attorney Renteria's failure to comply with OAH Orders was willful and knowing and demonstrates that Student was either unprepared or unwilling to timely prosecute this matter. Student failed to establish good cause for counsel's failure to appear at the PHC or to otherwise demonstrate why the matter should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Accordingly, the due process complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
All remaining hearing dates are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings