California OAH special education order · September 22, 2026
Order Denying Motion for Stay Put
OAH Case No. 2026090301 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH denied Student's stay put motion without prejudice because Student did not provide the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP or a sworn statement supporting the motion.
Summary
Student asked for stay put, claiming the operative IEP was from March 2025, and later asked for an immediate ruling. Student attached two IEPs, dated February 5, 2026 and March 26, 2025, but neither was signed or consented to. Irvine Unified opposed the motion, and Newport-Mesa did not respond. OAH denied the motion without prejudice because Student did not provide the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP or a sworn statement, so Student did not meet the burden of proof. Student may file a new motion with the needed evidence.
Why it matters
A stay put motion must include proof of the last agreed-upon and implemented IEP, such as a signed and consented IEP, and a sworn declaration supporting the facts. Unsigned IEPs and unsupported claims will not meet the burden of proof.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(j)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.518(a)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (d)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a)
- Thomas v. Cincinnati Bd. of Educ. (6th Cir. 1990) 918 F.2d 618
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.
NEWPORT-MESA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND IRVINE
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2026090301
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR STAY PUT
SEPTEMBER 22, 2026
On September 8, 2026, Student filed a motion for stay put. Student’s three-page motion alleged Student’s operative individual education program, IEP, is March 25,
2025. As separate documents, Student included two IEPs, one dated February 5, 2026,
and one dated March 26, 2025. Neither IEP provided by Student is consented to or signed. On September 21, 2026, Student filed an application for immediate ruling on Student’s pending motion for stay put.
Irvine Unified School District filed an opposition to Student’s motion for stay put on September 22, 2026. Newport-Mesa did not file a response to Student’s motion for stay put and subsequent request for immediate ruling.
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.)
In California, “specific educational placement” is defined as “that unique combination of facilities, personnel, location or equipment necessary to provide instructional services to an individual with exceptional needs,” as specified in the IEP.
(Cal. Code Regs. tit. 5, § 3042, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
Student failed to support his motion for stay put with a copy of his last agreed upon and implemented IEP or a sworn statement supporting the allegations in his motion. As such, Student failed to meet his burden of proof.
The motion for stay put is denied without prejudice. Student may submit a new motion for stay put with the necessary evidence to support his request.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings