California OAH special education order · June 3, 2026
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2026051116 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion because Student did not identify or provide a last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Acalanes said Student was never found eligible and had graduated.
Summary
Student asked OAH to order stay put. Acalanes opposed. It said Student was never found eligible for special education and never received services, backed by a sworn declaration, and that Student graduated with a regular diploma on May 29, 2026. OAH denied the motion because Student did not provide an IEP or make clear what last agreed-upon and implemented placement applied, but allowed Student to refile with proper documentation.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must identify and attach the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP. Without one, especially where the district says the student was never eligible, the motion will fail.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code § 56505, subd. (d)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
People named in the order
- Leigh Gregory, Executive Director of Special and Auxiliary Services, Acalanes (declarant)
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.
ACALANES UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026051116
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
JUNE 3, 2026
On May 28, 2026, Student filed a motion for stay put. On June 2, 2026, District filed an opposition on the grounds that Student is not a child entitled to the protections of the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Student did not provide a copy of the individualized education program, called IEP, that demonstrated Student’s educational program she was entitled to prior to the dispute arising.
APPLICABLE LAW
Until due process hearing procedures are complete, a special education student is entitled to remain in his or her current educational placement, unless the parties agree otherwise. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(j); 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a) (2006); Ed.Code, § 56505 subd. (d).)
This is referred to as “stay put.” For purposes of stay put, the current educational placement is typically the last agreed upon and implemented individualized educational program, called IEP, placement prior to the dispute arising. (Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618, 625.)
DISCUSSION
It is unclear from Student’s request for due process and subsequent stay put motion what Student alleges is the last consented to and implemented IEP for stay put purposes. Acalanes provided a sworn declaration from the executive director of Special and Auxiliary Services, Leigh Gregory, attesting to Student never being found eligible for special education nor receiving special education services. Acalanes further argues Student graduated from Campolindo High School with a regular high school diploma on May 29, 2026.
Student did not establish that she is entitled to stay put. Nothing precludes Student from refiling a motion for stay put with the proper documentation to establish Student’s entitlement to stay put.
ORDER
Student’s request for Stay Put is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings