California OAH special education order · July 24, 2026
Order Denying Motion to Compel District's Response to Due Process Complaint as Moot
OAH Case No. 2026061341 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH denied Student's motion to compel Folsom-Cordova's response to the due process complaint as moot because the district filed and served its response the day after the motion was filed.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint on June 26, 2026. Folsom-Cordova did not file the response that the IDEA and the Education Code require within 10 days, so Student moved on July 20, 2026 to compel one. Folsom-Cordova filed its response on July 21, 2026, and OAH denied the motion as moot. OAH also found that Student showed no credible evidence of prejudice from the late filing, noted that purely technical violations are not grounds for relief, and denied all other relief sought in the motion.
Why it matters
A district's late response to a due process complaint is a procedural violation, but once the district files it, a motion to compel becomes moot. Any further relief requires showing real prejudice from the delay.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2)
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.
FOLSOM-CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026061341
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISTRICT’S
RESPONSE TO DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT AS MOOT
JULY 24, 2026
On June 26, 2026, Parents, on behalf of Student, filed a request for due process hearing, also called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Folsom-Cordova Unified School District as respondent. On July 20, 2026, Student filed a motion to compel the district to file a response to Student’s due process request. On July 21, 2026, Folsom-Cordova filed a response to Student’s due process request.
The IDEA and California special education laws require a school district to file a response to a due process hearing request within 10 days of receipt of the complaint if the school district did not previously send Parents a prior written notice. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(c)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508 (e); Ed. Code § 56502(d))
Student’s motion to compel Folsom-Cordova’s response to the complaint is moot, as Folsom-Cordova’s response to the complaint was filed with OAH, and appears to have been served on Student’s attorney via email on July 21, 2026.
Additionally, Student offered no credible evidence of prejudice due to the district’s late response filing. The general rule in both federal and state forums is that purely technical violations of procedures, resulting in no prejudice, are not grounds for relief. (See, 34 C.F.R. § 300.513(a)(2), [prohibiting IDEA hearing decisions to be based on solely technical violations of the IDEA.].) All other relief sought in the motion to compel is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings