Expedited hearings
264 California OAH special education orders on expedited hearings, newest first, each with a plain-English summary. Search and filter these orders.
2026
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because Student clarified the manifestation-related claim was a procedural FAPE denial, not an appeal of a disciplinary placement change, and withdrew any expedited portion.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing, Confirming Expedited Mediation, and Vacating Expedited Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing DatesOAH unexpedited the case after Student clarified that a claim about removal to a padded, windowless room would proceed only as a FAPE claim, not a discipline appeal.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Palo Alto's motion, joined by Student, to unexpedite the hearing because Student's complaint pleads a disciplinary change of placement without a manifestation determination review, which requires an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference and Order Setting Expedited MediationOAH set Manteca's expedited hearing on placing Student in an interim alternative setting for July 28–30, 2026, moved mediation to July 23, and denied Student's consolidation motion without prejudice.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Due Process HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. The complaint still raises disciplinary and manifestation determination claims, and the expedited timeline is mandatory unless Student withdraws those claims.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference and Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite and Vacating Expedited DatesOAH granted University Preparatory's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Parent clarified that Student's truancy and SARB claim did not allege a disciplinary change of placement or appeal a manifestation determination.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Tulare City's motion to unexpedite because Student's claims that the district refused or delayed a manifestation determination and miscounted removal days raise expedited issues.
- Order Granting Ukiah's Motion to Dismiss Student's Amended Issue Number Two and Vacating Expedited Prehearing Conference and Expedited Hearing DatesOAH dismissed Student's re-pleaded expedited issue about an ignored manifestation determination request because OAH had already decided it after an expedited hearing. OAH also vacated the new expedited hearing dates.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because the complaint still alleged Los Angeles failed to timely hold a manifestation determination meeting before starting expulsion proceedings.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Granting Motion to Unexpedite and Vacating Expedited Hearing DatesOAH granted San Francisco's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student stated no discipline-related issue and both sides confirmed Student was never subjected to a disciplinary removal.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Ukiah's motions to dismiss and to bifurcate a self-represented parent's expedited manifestation determination claims. The ALJ cited the broad latitude given to self-represented litigants and the short length of the hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied a joint stipulation to unexpedite the hearing because Student's manifestation determination claim triggers the mandatory expedited timeline, and Student's disenrollment from Palmdale is not a recognized exception.
- Order Denying Request to Unexpedite Due Process HearingOAH denied a joint request to unexpedite the hearing because Student's issue cites the IDEA discipline provisions, which require an expedited hearing, and Student did not withdraw that issue.
- Order Denying Student's Request for Continuance of Expedited Due Process Hearing; Order Delaying Start Time to 1:00 PMOAH denied Student's request to continue an expedited hearing because federal law requires a manifestation determination appeal to be heard within 20 school days. It moved the first day's start to 1:00 PM for a court conflict.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Los Angeles's motion to unexpedite Student's manifestation determination claims. Its arguments (no disciplinary removal, Student enrolled elsewhere) raised factual disputes for hearing and amounted to summary judgment, which special education law does not allow.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Granting San Lorenzo's Motion to Remove Expedited Hearing DatesOAH vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student's complaint did not plead a disciplinary change of placement or a manifestation determination dispute, and new issues in a PHC statement could not supply them.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH overruled Simi Valley's objection that a Section 504 manifestation meeting was outside its jurisdiction, because whether the district had a 'basis of knowledge' of Student's disability is a disputed fact requiring a hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion to Amend ComplaintOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to amend his expedited complaint because amending would restart timelines and delay an expedited hearing, which IDEA forbids. OAH set manifestation determination issues for a February 24, 2026 videoconference hearing.
- Order Denying Student's Motion for Targeted Interim Findings and Interim Protective Relief, During Expedited ProceedingsOAH denied Student's emergency motion for interim factual findings and an order halting disciplinary removals mid-hearing, because no law provides faster relief than the expedited hearing process itself.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed the YMCA and Cupertino's school board as respondents for lack of jurisdiction, as in prior orders, and set three discipline-removal issues for an expedited videoconference hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference, and Denying Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's request to continue an expedited discipline hearing after his attorney withdrew, because OAH has no discretion to continue expedited hearings past the 20-school-day deadline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the parties' joint motion to unexpedite the case because Student's counsel swore Student did not intend to raise expedited discipline-related claims. The case now proceeds only as a non-expedited FAPE case.
- Order Denying Request to Reschedule the Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's request to move the expedited prehearing conference to a different time. OAH does not hold conferences at the requested times, Parent's other hearing did not conflict, and expedited deadlines cannot be extended.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates, because Student chose to challenge the placement change under section 1415(b)(6)(A) rather than appeal under section 1415(k).
2025
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite All Expedited IssuesOAH refused to unexpedite Student's case because vague claims about a suspension without notice and an assessment request could raise a basis-of-knowledge discipline claim, and the District's factual disputes need a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite the hearing because the complaint pled a manifestation determination claim, and the expedited timeline attaches to the issues pled, not the remedies sought.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Clarifying Scope of Issue AllegedOAH unexpedited the case after Student clarified that her manifestation determination claim seeks a denial of FAPE ruling, not a disciplinary appeal, and barred Student from arguing violations of the discipline provisions.
- Order Granting Joint Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the parties' joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student's complaint raised no disciplinary removal or manifestation determination issues that require an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. The complaint mentioned a manifestation determination meeting but raised only general FAPE claims, not a challenge to that determination or a discipline-based placement change.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed Student's expedited claims arising before April 11, 2025 because the parties' April 10, 2025 settlement waived them. It refused to apply res judicata or collateral estoppel without hearing facts first.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference, and Denying Motion to Unexpedite IssuesOAH denied the parties' joint motion to unexpedite because Student's two manifestation determination claims arise under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) and must be heard on an expedited basis.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the Academy's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint, alleging missed manifestation determinations and unlawful disability-related suspensions, raised discipline claims that must be heard on an expedited schedule.
- Order Denying Orcutt Union's Request for Continuance of Expedited HearingOAH denied Orcutt Union's request to continue the expedited hearing because the district cited no legal basis for changing the federally required expedited timeline, even though Student consented to an alternative placement.
- Order Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Parents' unopposed request to continue an expedited hearing because the complaint raised disciplinary-placement issues that must be heard within 20 school days, with no exceptions.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Expedited Issue and to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to drop the expedited manifestation determination issue and unexpedite the case, because no remaining issue was a disciplinary appeal requiring an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted motions by Student and Pleasant View to unexpedite the case because the complaint did not challenge a manifestation determination or a disciplinary removal.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Poway's unopposed motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student's claim about a missing manifestation determination review is an expedited issue that OAH has no power to unexpedite.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference; Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied Hayward's motion to unexpedite because Student properly pled expedited issues challenging the December 10, 2024 manifestation determination and interim placement, and set a three-day expedited videoconference hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. The manifestation-determination claim alleged only a procedural parental participation violation, not a disciplinary placement appeal, and Student had already returned to his original placement.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion to ConsolidateOAH denied Sweetwater's unopposed motion to consolidate because the two expedited claims had conflicting burdens of proof, different legal standards, and were filed a month apart. It limited the expedited hearing to one procedural issue.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH vacated expedited hearing dates because Student said he sought relief only under section 1415(b)(6)(A), which OAH treated as dismissing his discipline-related expedited claims under section 1415(k).
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference, Granting Student's Request to Unexpedite Issues and Vacate Expedited Hearing DatesOAH unexpedited Student's disciplinary-removal issue and vacated the expedited hearing dates. Student chose to pursue the issue as a FAPE denial under section 1415(b)(6)(A), not under the discipline provisions of section 1415(k).
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Mount Shasta's motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student's complaint alleged the district failed to hold required manifestation determination meetings, a claim that triggers expedited hearing timelines.
2024
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. Student showed the complaint raised no expedited disciplinary appeal, but Student is barred from arguing violations of the discipline rules in the regular hearing.
- Order Granting Student's Second Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Motions to Unexpedite Hearing as MootOAH granted Student's timely second motion to amend and reset all timelines. It denied Student's motions to unexpedite the hearing as moot because they concerned a complaint that was no longer operative.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite because the complaint challenged a manifestation determination and alleged Parents disagreed with it, which by itself requires an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because the complaint still alleged a failure to hold a manifestation determination meeting, an issue that legally requires an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference and Denying District's Motion to Unexpedite IssueOAH denied Kinetic Academy's motion to unexpedite Student's manifestation determination claim over disenrollment for nonattendance, finding the motion was really a request for summary adjudication, which is unavailable in IDEA cases.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied East Side's motion to unexpedite, even though Student did not oppose it, because Student's complaint challenges a manifestation determination and the federal expedited-hearing timeline is mandatory.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Unexpedite and Vacating Expedited Hearing DatesOAH granted Mount Diablo Unified's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates after Student withdrew his manifestation determination claims and conceded the remaining claims did not require an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case and vacated the expedited dates because Student did not intend to appeal the manifestation determination or discipline. The claims were treated as ordinary FAPE claims instead.
- Order Denying Without Prejudice Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Sequoia Union's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint still alleged a failure to hold a manifestation determination meeting, an issue that triggers an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Expedited IssuesOAH denied Panama-Buena Vista's motion to dismiss Student's expedited issues as moot because the district filed it after the deadline without a sworn declaration showing good cause.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH refused the parties' joint request to drop expedited hearing dates because Student's amended complaint challenges a manifestation determination, triggering mandatory expedited timelines under federal law.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's request to take a district-filed expedited dangerousness hearing off calendar because Student's one-sided, vague stipulation did not resolve the expedited issue or remedies, and the District had not withdrawn them.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference and Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Vacating Expedited Due Process Hearing DatesOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates. Student's disciplinary-removal claim sought only compensation for lost services under section 1415(b)(6)(A), not a disciplinary appeal under section 1415(k).
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference by Videoconference and Order Denying Student's Motion to Continue the Expedited Pre-Hearing Conference and Expedited Due Process HearingOAH denied Student's oral motion to continue the expedited hearing as moot after Capistrano District agreed to give Student a draft copy of its evidence that day, and set a three-day expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to UnexpediteOAH unexpedited Student's case and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student chose to challenge the 2022 placement changes only as denials of FAPE, not as discipline or manifestation determination violations.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Motion to Un-Expedite; Vacating Expedited Hearing Dates; Dismissing Issue 9; and Modifying Issue 10 of the ComplaintOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to un-expedite only after Student withdrew a manifestation-determination claim and narrowed a behavior-assessment claim, because issues tied to discipline under Section 1415(k) automatically require an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Continuing the Un-Expedited Hearing by Videoconference; and Clarification of Expedited Hearing IssuesOAH reframed the expedited hearing issues because the earlier-listed issues were FAPE claims, not expedited ones. It also moved the un-expedited hearing to March 5, 2024, to avoid overlapping the expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Santa Monica-Malibu's motion to unexpedite because Student's issues about a manifestation determination and a disciplinary change of placement, as pled, raise expedited claims and Student asserted his right to an expedited hearing.
2023
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's request to vacate expedited hearing dates because Student kept a disciplinary-provisions claim (Issue 9) in the complaint, which triggers a mandatory expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH moved two of Student's manifestation-review claims to the non-expedited track, ruling that neither a manifestation team nor an ALJ decides whether the underlying misconduct actually happened.
- Notice of No Action on District's Motions to Dismiss, Unexpedite, Consolidate, and ContinueOAH refused to act on Sequoia's motions to dismiss, unexpedite, and continue because they were bundled into one filing, and found the consolidation motion moot after Sequoia dismissed its own case.
- Order Denying Request for Continuance of an Expedited HearingOAH denied Student's request to continue the expedited mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing because Berkeley's claim to remove Student to an interim placement as a danger triggers mandatory expedited timelines.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference Granting Joint Motion to Unexpedite and Vacating Expedited DatesOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the case because Student clarified that his placement claims arise under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A), not as a discipline appeal under section 1415(k).
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Dismissing Expedited IssueOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and dismissed the manifestation determination claim, because Student withdrew it and no expedited issue remained.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Issue 1d challenges a March 2023 disciplinary change of placement, a Section 1415(k) claim that must be heard on the expedited timeline.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite, ruling that challenges to how manifestation determination reviews were conducted must be heard on the expedited track, and the Molina case does not hold otherwise.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited DatesOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the case and vacated the expedited dates. Student was not appealing the manifestation determination's outcome and waived expedited relief, so no expedited issue remained.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Dismissing Expedited Issues and Addressing Motion to UnexpediteOAH dismissed Student's two expedited discipline claims after Student's attorney failed to appear at the expedited prehearing conference, and refused to move those claims into the non-expedited hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion to Un-Expedite and Granting Motion for Two-Day ContinuanceOAH refused to un-expedite Student's manifestation determination challenge because the complaint adequately alleged Parent's disagreement with the finding. It granted Delta Charter a two-day continuance within the 20-school-day deadline.
- Order Denying Clovis Unified School District's Motion to Unexpedite Hearing as MootOAH denied Clovis's motion to unexpedite as moot because the ALJ had already found at the expedited prehearing conference that Student's issue required an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Student's Request to Unexpedite Case, Dismissing the Expedited Issue, and Vacating Expedited Hearing Dates; and Clarification of the Remaining Issue for the Unexpedited HearingOAH granted Parent's request to unexpedite the case and dismissed the discipline claim, because expedited hearings cannot be continued. Only a child find claim remains, and the Section 504 claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Order Denying Crescent View's Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied Crescent View's motion to unexpedite because Student's single expedited claim is against Clovis only, and found that the truancy-based change-of-placement claim qualifies for an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Sacramento City Unified's motion to dismiss an expedited discipline case. The district had notice of the case despite claimed non-service, and its withdrawal argument required evidence, not summary dismissal.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Clovis Unified's unopposed motion to unexpedite because it relied on the original rather than the amended complaint, and the amended complaint appears to allege a disciplinary change-of-placement claim.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case because Student no longer attends Springs Charter and seeks only compensatory education, not placement or discipline relief, so no expedited issue exists.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Vacating Non-Expedited Hearing Dates; and Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Parents' request to continue an expedited hearing so they could get a lawyer, finding they had over two weeks' notice and no evidence of significant efforts to retain counsel.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH set a February 7–9, 2023 expedited videoconference hearing on Franklin-McKinley's request to move Student to a 45-school-day interim alternative setting. It barred an attorney who had not filed a notice of representation.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, Dismissing Expedited Issue, and Granting Motion to Consolidate Non-Expedited IssuesOAH dismissed Downey's expedited issue because Downey was not seeking a 45-day interim alternative placement for a dangerous student, and granted Downey's unopposed motion to consolidate its case with Student's case.
2022
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Due Process HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because the only remaining claim, that Sacramento City missed the ten-day deadline for a manifestation determination, is a procedural violation and not an appeal entitled to an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied San Marcos's unopposed motion to unexpedite. Student's claim that no manifestation determination was held is an expedited issue, and Student had not withdrawn it or limited it to a FAPE claim.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite Sacramento's dangerousness case because the district's claim that Student's current placement risks injury falls squarely within the mandatory expedited-hearing rules.
- Order Granting Joint Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates. Student withdrew any expedited claims and, now at a charter school, did not seek a manifestation determination or a return to his prior placement.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Expedited Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH set a two-day expedited hearing on whether the District violated discipline protections when a nonpublic school ended Student's enrollment, and denied Student's motions to amend and for prehearing discovery.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Miller Creek's motion to unexpedite, ruling that whether a nonpublic school's 20-day termination notice was a disciplinary change of placement is a factual question for the expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Amend and for Expedited HearingOAH denied Student's requests to expedite and to file a second amended complaint. No issue involved discipline or a manifestation determination, and more amendments would delay a case pending since November 2021.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because a claim about defective notice of a manifestation determination meeting directly challenges that meeting under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) and must be heard on an expedited basis.
- Order Denying Motion to Expedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to expedite because none of the complaint's issues alleged a disciplinary change of placement or manifestation determination claim under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(k).
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Order Denying Motion to Un-Expedite MatterOAH denied Pleasanton Unified's motion to un-expedite because Student's complaint pleaded enough facts to state a claim for an expedited hearing on the district's failure to hold a manifestation determination meeting.
2021
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH took Student's case off the expedited track. The complaint alleged a placement change of more than ten days but did not tie it to discipline, a code-of-conduct violation, or a manifestation determination.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the case because Student disclaimed any disciplinary-removal appeal under Section 1415(k), but barred Student from arguing violations of the disciplinary provisions.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Mount Diablo's motion to unexpedite because Student's claims about a missed manifestation determination and behavior assessment and plan failures are expedited issues, even without current or pending discipline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating the Expedited Prehearing Conference and Expedited Hearing DatesOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite the case after Student affirmed that Issues 14 and 15 are pursued only as denials of FAPE, not as a disciplinary appeal.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied a joint motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student's complaint challenged a manifestation determination and a failure to do an FBA and behavior plan, both mandatory expedited issues.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Mt. Diablo's opposed motion to unexpedite, finding pandemic distance learning and independent study were not disciplinary changes of placement, and no manifestation determination remedy was requested.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Los Angeles' unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint alleged he was sent home without a manifestation determination review, raising a disciplinary change-of-placement claim that requires an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Los Angeles's motion to unexpedite because Student withdrew his manifestation determination claim, leaving only non-expedited FAPE claims; the expedited dates were vacated and regular hearing dates set.
2020
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because Student sought no expedited disciplinary remedies. Student's claims about an interim alternative placement for carrying a pocketknife will proceed only as ordinary denial-of-FAPE claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the hearing after Student withdrew Issue 6, the only claim challenging a manifestation determination, and vacated the expedited dates while the remaining issues proceed on the regular schedule.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' joint motion to unexpedite. Student's complaint challenges a 2018 manifestation determination, and that claim triggers a mandatory expedited hearing that the parties cannot waive by agreement.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Pajaro Valley Unified's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint, though it mentioned manifestation determination meetings, did not appeal a manifestation determination and raised only FAPE claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case and vacated the expedited dates because Student clarified that suspensions were raised only as FAPE denials, not as a disciplinary or manifestation determination appeal.
- Order Granting Motion to UnexpediteOAH vacated the expedited hearing at the parties' joint request. Student may pursue the expulsion-related issue only as a FAPE claim and is barred from raising special education discipline violations.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Student's unopposed motions to unexpedite and continue the hearing. The complaint raised manifestation determination and discipline-related placement claims, and the law allows no continuances of expedited hearings, even for a guardian's COVID illness.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Woodland's motion to unexpedite and continue the hearing because Student's complaint challenged a manifestation determination, which must be heard within 20 school days, summer weekdays included.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite. The claim that Pasadena gave inadequate notice of the manifestation determination meeting is an expedited issue, and it must be heard on the expedited timeline unless withdrawn or recast.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates because Student disclaimed any disciplinary appeal under section 1415(k), which effectively withdrew the expedited manifestation determination claim.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied Santa Paula's motion to unexpedite Student's challenge to a manifestation determination, because an expedited hearing is the only way a parent can overturn the determination and remove it from Student's records.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because the claim about a missed manifestation determination from two years earlier was not a disciplinary appeal, and Student sought relief only under the regular due process rules.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. The manifestation-determination claim was brought as a denial of FAPE, not a disciplinary appeal, and Student faces no current discipline.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH overruled Menifee's objection and kept Student's failure-to-expedite-assessment claim in the expedited discipline hearing, finding that the complaint, read broadly, covered that legal theory.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's request to unexpedite the hearing because Student only stated an intent to proceed on a non-expedited timeline and did not withdraw the expedited discipline-related claims.
- Order Granting Student's Second Motion to Amend ComplaintOAH granted Student's unopposed second amended complaint but ruled the case must stay expedited, because Student still challenged the manifestation determination and sought removal of suspensions from school records.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied a joint motion to unexpedite. A dispute over whether a manifestation determination was required still triggers a mandatory expedited hearing, even with no pending discipline and only compensatory education sought.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, and Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Bakersfield's opposed motion to unexpedite because Student challenged a Section 504 compliance review, not an IDEA manifestation determination, pleaded only ten days of suspension, and faced no current placement change.
2019
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied East Side's motion to unexpedite because whether the district had a basis of knowledge that a general education Student might have a disability is a factual question for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Dismissing Issue SixOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite and dismissed Issue Six because Student withdrew the only claim that qualified for an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited DatesOAH unexpedited Student's case against Los Angeles Unified because Student did not seek disciplinary remedies under Section 1415(k). The missed manifestation determination claim was limited to a denial-of-FAPE theory.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's motion to expedite the hearing because the complaint did not challenge a disciplinary change of placement. OAH set hearing for September 10-12, 2019, after an OAH scheduling error.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Expedited HearingOAH set an expedited hearing on whether Empire Springs Charter illegally expelled Student, and dismissed Student's charter-school statute claim as outside OAH's jurisdiction without objection.
- Order Denying Empire Springs' Motion for Continuance of Expedited HearingOAH denied Empire Springs Charter's request to postpone an expedited hearing until the new school year because its only evidence, the school calendar and lack of summer school, did not show good cause.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Request to Reschedule Hearing Until New School YearOAH denied Empire Springs' motion to unexpedite and its request to delay the hearing to August, because Student's eligibility and expulsion disputes are fact questions for hearing and no summer-program showing was made.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, Granting Motion to Unexpedite and Vacated Expedited Hearing DatesOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates. Student limited the expulsion-related manifestation determination claim to FAPE remedies and sought only compensatory relief.
- Order Denying Motions to Unexpedite Hearing and to Dismiss Expedited HearingOAH denied the districts' motions to unexpedite and dismiss the expedited hearing. The complaint alleged an expulsion without a manifestation determination, and who was the responsible agency is a disputed fact for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because the principal rescinded the expulsion recommendation and let Student return to school, leaving no discipline issue needing an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing, Vacating Expedited Mediation and Hearing Dates, and Deeming Motion to Reschedule Expedited Mediation MootOAH unexpedited Student's manifestation determination claim because Student disclaimed all disciplinary-appeal remedies under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) and sought only FAPE-based compensatory relief.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, Granting District's Motion to Unexpedite and Vacating Expedited HearingOAH granted Kern's motion to unexpedite Student's manifestation determination claim because Student faced no current discipline or change of placement and sought no expedited relief, vacating the expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Without PrejudiceOAH denied Student's unopposed request to unexpedite because the complaint still challenged a disciplinary expulsion and the manifestation determination process, and Student had not withdrawn or clarified those issues.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH refused to unexpedite Student's discipline hearing because whether Long Beach knew of a suspected disability before the misconduct requires evidence, and Student's enrollment elsewhere does not end the disciplinary removal.
- Order Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH took no action on Student's motion to unexpedite Antioch's hearing because neither Antioch's nor Student's complaint raised expedited issues, so no expedited hearing was ever scheduled.
- Order Granting Vista Unified School District's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Vista's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates. Student's complaint challenged eligibility and predetermination before an expulsion but did not seek to set aside any disciplinary action.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student's claim that Kern predetermined placement at the manifestation determination meeting must be heard on the mandatory expedited timeline.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH set Berkeley's expedited request to move Student to a 45-day interim placement at Spectrum Center for hearing, and denied Parent's request to continue because the IDEA does not allow continuing expedited hearings.
2018
- Order Denying Palo Alto's Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied Palo Alto's motion to unexpedite because whether Student's removal from a program was a disciplinary change of placement is a factual merits question that cannot be decided by motion.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Sky Mountain's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint adequately alleged a flawed manifestation determination, and OAH cannot resolve disputed facts about that meeting on a motion.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH kept Student's case on the expedited track because his claim challenging a March 2017 manifestation determination is an appeal under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)(A), even with no discipline pending.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited Prehearing Conference and Expedited Due Process Hearing Dates OnlyOAH granted Hanford's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates because none of Student's six issues challenged a disciplinary change of placement or a manifestation determination.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case against LAUSD because Student framed the manifestation determination claim as a denial of FAPE, not a disciplinary appeal, and sought no remedies available under section 1415(k).
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates, because Student challenged the manifestation determination only as a FAPE denial and did not ask that it be overturned.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited Mediation and Expedited HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite. Student's claim about a missed manifestation determination was framed as a FAPE denial, not a discipline appeal under Section 1415(k)(3), so no expedited hearing was required.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student was not expelled, so Burbank no longer planned a disciplinary change of placement.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student showed he would litigate his manifestation-determination claim only as a FAPE denial, and barred him from arguing disciplinary-law violations at hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH un-expedited the case and vacated the expedited dates because Student was not expelled at the July 2018 expulsion hearing, so only non-expedited FAPE claims remained.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. Student withdrew the manifestation determination challenge, the only expedited issue, so OAH vacated the expedited dates and kept the non-expedited schedule.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case because Student's complaint, though describing suspensions and discipline, did not challenge a change of placement or manifestation determination. Student may raise discipline facts only as a FAPE denial.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case after Student withdrew the only issue challenging the manifestation determination. Student may still raise those facts as a FAPE denial, but cannot seek discipline-based relief like reinstatement or expungement.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's request to withdraw the expedited part of the case because the one-paragraph letter did not say which claims and remedies, such as expulsion expungement and reinstatement, were being withdrawn.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenged a manifestation determination, and District's factual disputes are for the hearing, not a pre-hearing ruling on the merits.
- Order Denying Motion to Expedite Due Process HearingOAH denied Student's request for an expedited hearing because a district's late triennial IEP is not a discipline-related placement change or manifestation determination dispute that qualifies for expedited treatment.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted District's motion to unexpedite after Student's counsel waived all discipline-appeal claims and remedies under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k), so no mandatory expedited hearing was required.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because Student's move to a private parochial school did not moot whether District had a basis of knowledge requiring a manifestation determination before expulsion.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite the case because Student withdrew the only expedited issue, a manifestation determination claim. OAH dismissed that issue without prejudice and kept the non-expedited hearing dates.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student withdrew the manifestation determination claim, dismissing that issue without prejudice and resetting the case on a regular schedule.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student withdrew the manifestation determination issue that triggered the expedited hearing. The issue was dismissed without prejudice and the remaining issues were reset on the regular schedule.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite the case because Student withdrew the only expedited issue, a claim that District failed to hold a manifestation determination review meeting.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite. Student withdrew the manifestation determination and disciplinary removal issues, so OAH dismissed them and vacated the expedited hearing dates.
- Order Partially Granting and Partially Denying District's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH kept a self-represented Student's claim that the District knew of a suspected disability before expulsion, and denied the motion to unexpedite. It dismissed only the request to move the expulsion proceeding itself to OAH.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Fillmore Unified's motion to dismiss Student's expedited manifestation determination complaint and set a three-day expedited hearing on whether District wrongly found Student's conduct was not a manifestation of his disability.
- Order (Amended) Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's expedited manifestation determination complaint and set a three-day hearing on whether District's manifestation meeting and decision were proper, including translation for Parent.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student withdrew the only expedited claim, a late manifestation determination meeting, leaving no issue that required an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend and Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to amend and took the case off the expedited track because the amended complaint withdrew the manifestation determination claims that had required an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited Hearing DatesOAH granted Student's opposed motion to unexpedite. Student's counsel swore no disciplinary action or placement change was pending, so the manifestation determination claim proceeds only under section 1415(b)(6)(A).
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 2OAH dismissed Student's expedited claim challenging a manifestation determination. The district's review was held under Section 504, which OAH has no jurisdiction over, and no IDEA manifestation review had yet occurred.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because Student, now back in school, sought only remedies for denial of FAPE and no expedited remedies such as overturning a manifestation determination.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Dismissing Expedited ClaimsOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the case and dismissed Student's discipline-appeal claims, because Student sought only compensatory FAPE remedies, not reversal of the manifestation determination.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH set two expedited issues for hearing, on basis of knowledge and manifestation determination, and denied Hayward's oral motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing a written motion by January 17, 2018.
2017
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates. Student raised the missed manifestation determination meeting only as a FAPE denial, not as a disciplinary appeal under Section 1415(k).
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite because Student's claim about 14 days of disciplinary removals sought only remedies for a denial of FAPE, not discipline-related expedited remedies.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the parties' joint request to unexpedite the case because Student confirmed she was pursuing all claims only as denials of FAPE, not as discipline or manifestation determination appeals.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's request to unexpedite the hearing because Student's one-sentence letter withdrawing "the expedited issues" did not identify which issues were being withdrawn.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite the case because Student sought no expedited disciplinary remedies, such as return to placement or an interim alternative placement.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student withdrew, without prejudice, the only claim that triggered an expedited hearing: a missing manifestation determination before disenrollment.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Compel and/or Grant Additional ReliefOAH denied Oakland's motion to compel Parent to sign placement paperwork for an interim setting, because OAH loses jurisdiction once it issues a final expedited decision and cannot enforce or alter it.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH took the case off the expedited track because Student did not allege a disciplinary change of placement or appeal a manifestation determination. Student agreed through a non-opposition.
- Order Denying Request for Continuance of Expedited HearingOAH denied Student's request to push Oakland's expedited dangerousness hearing to September. Oakland's summer school is open to students at all grade levels, so summer days count toward the 20-school-day deadline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's discipline case because both districts had assessed Student and found him ineligible, so Pittsburg had no 'basis of knowledge' requiring a manifestation determination.
- Order Granting Motion to Amend; Identifying Case as Dual; Maintaining Consolidation; Designating District Case as Lead Case; and Continuing Non-Expedited DatesOAH let Oakland amend its complaint to seek an interim alternative placement for Student, turning the case into a dual expedited matter while keeping the September non-expedited hearing dates and consolidation.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and dismissed the remaining expedited issues without prejudice, because withdrawing the issues that triggered an expedited hearing allows the matter to proceed on the regular track.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite because the complaint still challenges a disciplinary change of placement and a missing manifestation determination review, which legally requires an expedited hearing.
- Amended Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Alpha Public Schools' Motion to BifurcateOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite because Student clarified that his manifestation-determination claim alleges only a denial of FAPE, vacated the expedited dates, and denied Alpha's bifurcation motion as moot.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Alpha Public Schools' Motion to BifurcateOAH unexpedited the case after Student clarified that his claim about a May 2016 manifestation determination meeting without Parent alleged only a denial of FAPE, and denied Alpha's bifurcation motion as moot.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite Hearing Against Antelope Valley Union High School DistrictOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite the hearing against Antelope Valley because it was unclear whether Student still challenged the manifestation determination, an appeal that requires a mandatory expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Franklin-McKinley's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's claim that a manifestation determination meeting was held without Parent is a procedural challenge that must be heard on an expedited timeline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite the case because Student dismissed the three discipline-related expedited issues, vacating the expedited dates and setting a regular hearing schedule.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's disciplinary-removal claim because Student no longer attends Aspire, making the expedited issue moot. Student may litigate the removals only as a denial of FAPE.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite the hearing because the suspension claim still triggered the expedited timeline and the request to withdraw or join that issue was unclear.
- Order Denying Tracy Unified School District's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Tracy's motion to unexpedite. Student's challenge to 12 days of past suspensions stays on the expedited track because Student remains in the district and timely requested an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case and vacated the expedited hearing dates because Student withdrew every issue that challenged a disciplinary removal or manifestation determination, leaving only non-expedited claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates. Student did not intend a disciplinary appeal, so Student may argue the past suspensions only as a denial of FAPE.
- Order Denying Anderson Valley Unified School District's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Anderson Valley's motion to unexpedite because Student's challenges to a disciplinary change of placement and to the manifestation determination triggered the mandatory right to an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because it raised factual and merits disputes about whether a change of placement occurred, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Pleasant Valley's motion to unexpedite because disputed facts remained about whether the manifestation determination was procedurally flawed and whether Student's placement change resulted from the disciplinary process.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student dismissed all three expedited discipline issues with prejudice, vacated the expedited dates, and set the case on a regular schedule.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because the complaint sought only FAPE remedies and did not appeal any manifestation determination or disciplinary placement change, and barred Student from arguing disciplinary-law violations.
2016
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates. Student dropped the only expedited claim, about a missed manifestation determination meeting, so no issue remained that required an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited hearing dates. Student withdrew the only issue that triggered an expedited hearing, a disciplinary exclusion of more than 10 days.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, Denying Motion to Continue the Prehearing Conference, and Denying Motion to Unexpedite the Due Process HearingOAH denied District's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenged two manifestation determinations, which by law requires an expedited hearing. OAH also denied Student's request to continue the prehearing conference.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Granting Request to Vacate Expedited Hearing, Prehearing Conference and Mediation DatesOAH unexpedited Student's case against Clovis after Student withdrew the discipline-related issues from expedited consideration, because a student may choose to pursue those claims as regular FAPE claims instead.
- Order Denying Motion to Amend Complaint and Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed motions to amend and to unexpedite because the amended complaint repeated the original issues, including expedited manifestation determination claims.
- Order Denying District's Motion to UnexpediteOAH kept Student's case on the expedited track because Student is appealing a missed manifestation determination and a non-manifestation finding, which federal law requires OAH to hear quickly.
- Order Granting Student's Request to Unexpedite Due Process Hearing and Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH unexpedited Student's case because Student withdrew all requests for expedited relief. It denied District's motion to dismiss because the motion sought a merits ruling and was no longer necessary.
- Order Denying Request to Expedite Mediation; Denying Request to Compel Torrance Unified School District to Participate in Mediation; and Order Scheduling Voluntary Mediation for June 22, 2016OAH denied Student's requests to expedite mediation and to force Torrance to attend. No disciplinary facts justified expediting, and mediation is voluntary, but OAH offered a new voluntary mediation date.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the parties' joint motion to unexpedite the hearing because Student, who moved out of the District, did not actually seek a manifestation determination or a return to his prior school.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted District's unopposed motion to unexpedite because Student's claim about a missed manifestation determination meeting sought no such meeting and was not a disciplinary appeal, so it will be heard as a FAPE claim.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference and Dismissing Expedited Issue Without Prejudice; Vacating Expedited Hearing Date; and Denying Motion to Unexpedite as MootOAH dismissed Student's expedited issue without prejudice and vacated the expedited hearing because Student's counsel failed to appear at the expedited prehearing conference despite notice and two calls from the ALJ.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the parties' joint motion to unexpedite. Student's claim about a missed manifestation determination meeting was really a denial-of-FAPE claim, not a disciplinary appeal, so the expedited dates were vacated.
- Order Denying Without Prejudice Student's Motion to Unexpedite IssuesOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite issues because the complaint alleged discipline-related violations under section 1415(k) and the motion lacked a sworn declaration withdrawing those claims and waiving expedited relief.
- Order Denying Motion to UnexpediteOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite because the complaint challenges District's failure to hold a manifestation determination after 21 early send-homes, which requires an expedited hearing under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k).
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the case because Student withdrew the expulsion claim, leaving only a non-expedited child find claim for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH took the case off the expedited track because Student had moved out of Vallejo City, no discipline was pending, and Student did not ask for a manifestation determination meeting.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' joint request to unexpedite the hearing because Student's complaint still challenges a manifestation determination, and federal law requires an expedited hearing on that claim.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because Student did not seek to set aside the 2014 expulsion, so the expulsion issue is not a disciplinary appeal requiring an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite the hearing. Student challenged District's failure to offer a new placement after leaving a nonpublic school, not the school's disciplinary 'expulsion' itself.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's request to continue the expedited hearing because federal discipline-hearing timelines allow no continuances, but moved the non-expedited issues to April and ordered District to produce remaining records.
2015
- Order Denying Second Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' second joint motion to unexpedite because Student's claim that District failed to hold a manifestation determination meeting triggers a mandatory expedited hearing, even two years later.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' joint motion to unexpedite because Student's claim challenging a 45-day unilateral removal and interim setting falls under the IDEA's mandatory expedited hearing provisions.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing and Denying Motion to Dismiss or Continue Expedited Hearing Dates as MootOAH took Student's case off the expedited track because none of the 32 issues challenged a disciplinary placement change or manifestation determination; discipline facts were only background.
- Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Cases and Setting Schedule for Consolidated Non-Expedited and Consolidated Expedited MattersOAH consolidated three cases over Student's 45-day interim alternative educational setting and ruled that all interim-placement issues must be heard on expedited dates, because discipline-related placement changes trigger mandatory expedited hearings.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied a joint motion to unexpedite because Student's claims that District suspended him over 10 days without a manifestation determination fall under Section 1415(k), which requires an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Order to Show Cause Why Expedited Issues Should Not Be DismissedOAH ordered Student to show cause why the expedited issues should not be dismissed. Student filed no prehearing conference statement and did not appear at the prehearing conference, despite the short expedited timelines.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted District's unopposed motion to unexpedite. District had assessed Student and found him ineligible before the disciplinary school change, so no expedited issue existed.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's motion to unexpedite District's dangerousness case because District still alleged a substantial risk of injury to staff and Student during home study, and credibility must be decided at hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied New Jerusalem's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint raised valid expedited challenges to manifestation determinations from October and November 2014 and September 2015.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Franklin-McKinley's request to unexpedite the hearing. Student alleged suspensions of more than 10 days and an expulsion with no manifestation determination or interim placement, and those claims require an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted a joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates because Student agreed to dismiss, without prejudice, the suspension-related contention that had triggered the expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted the joint motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates because Student's complaint challenged the April 2015 IEP offer and general aide training, not the manifestation determination placement.
- Order Denying Request for Expedited Hearing and Request to ConsolidateOAH denied the Authority's request for an expedited hearing because a deadline for a triennial assessment and IEP meeting is not a disciplinary placement issue. It denied consolidation without prejudice because consolidation needs a separate motion.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Hearing, Partially Dismissing Issue One and Denying Request to Change Prehearing Conference Start TimeOAH unexpedited Student's case because a prior settlement resolved the January 2015 manifestation determination, and the June 2015 removal was based on residency, not a code-of-conduct violation.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited Student's case because San Rafael removed Student for not living in the district, not for a code-of-conduct violation, so no issue qualified for an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH took the case off the expedited track because Student dismissed without prejudice the only expedited issue, a claim that District suspended Student over 10 days without a manifestation determination.
- Order Granting Request to Unexpedite Hearing and Vacating Expedited Hearing DatesOAH unexpedited Student's case and vacated expedited dates after Student disclaimed any disciplinary challenges, but barred her from raising any IDEA discipline-provision violations at hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH unexpedited the case after Student clarified she was not challenging the manifestation determination, treating her behavior and placement claims as ordinary FAPE claims and resetting the hearing to July 14, 2015.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' joint motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenges a disciplinary change of placement made without a manifestation determination despite District's alleged basis of knowledge of disability.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied a joint motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenged manifestation determinations, which must be heard on an expedited basis even if no discipline is pending.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint challenged repeated removals from her placement and the outcomes of manifestation determination meetings, which triggers the expedited hearing timeline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite Student's Hearing as to East Side and County Only, Denying Motion to Unexpedite as to San Benito, and Continuing Expedited Hearing by One DayOAH removed East Side and County from Student's expedited hearing because no disciplinary claims were alleged against them, but kept San Benito's hearing expedited and moved it one day.
2014
- Order Granting Request for Continuance of Expedited HearingOAH granted Student's opposed request to continue the expedited hearing to January 6, 2015, after counsel showed good cause through a family death. Counsel must submit proof or risk sanctions.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's oral motion to move the expedited hearing to January 6, 2015, finding no good cause, and kept the hearing on December 17–19, 2014, limited to discipline claims against Panama.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Unexpedite Issue F of Student's ComplaintOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite Student's claim about removal to an isolation unit, because whether the removal was disciplinary is a disputed fact that requires a hearing.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing ConferenceOAH set a November 4-6, 2014 expedited hearing on two questions: whether District knew Student had a disability, and whether Student's conduct was a manifestation of that disability. District's timelines motion was found moot.
- Order Concerning Scope of Issues Raised in ComplaintOAH ruled that Student's allegations about an April 2013 manifestation determination meeting are a regular denial-of-FAPE claim, not an expedited disciplinary appeal, because Student never requested an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying San Juan Unified School District's Motion to Un-Expedite Hearing on Manifestation IssueOAH denied San Juan's motion to un-expedite Student's manifestation claim because disputes over suspension days and the district's notice of disability require fact-finding, and special education law has no summary judgment.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted San Jose's unopposed motion to unexpedite Student's case because there was no current or pending disciplinary action, and it vacated the expedited mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Order Granting Consolidation; Order Granting Continuance of Non-Expedited HearingOAH consolidated Student's two expedited discipline cases. It denied Student's request for judgment based on the District's failure to hold a resolution session, because an ALJ cannot impose default judgment for that failure.
- Order (1) Denying Joint Request to Unexpedite Hearing and (2) Consolidating Related CasesOAH refused the parties' joint request to unexpedite the hearing because Student's expulsion and manifestation claims still trigger mandatory expedited timelines. It also consolidated Student's two related cases.
- Order Denying Request to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied the parties' joint stipulation to unexpedite the hearing because Student's complaint alleged constructive expulsion without a manifestation determination meeting, which requires an expedited hearing regardless of the parties' agreement.
- Order Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied the parties' joint request to continue an expedited disciplinary hearing because no law allows expedited hearings to be continued, and the proposed dates fell outside the statutory timelines.
- Order Granting Student's Motion to Unexpedite Hearing, Vacating Expedited DatesOAH granted Student's unopposed motion to unexpedite the case because Student withdrew the discipline-related Issues 7 through 10. OAH vacated the expedited dates, and the non-expedited dates remain in place.
2013
- Order Following Expedited Pre-Hearing Conference Setting Order to Show Cause Re: DismissalOAH refused to vacate Student's expedited hearing because expedited hearings cannot be continued or stayed, and ordered Student to show cause why the case should not be dismissed after both attorneys missed the prehearing conference.
- Order Denying Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied both parties' joint request to unexpedite the case because Student's complaint challenges a manifestation determination, which by law must go to an expedited hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Student's Request to Re-Set TimelinesOAH reset the timelines in the District's expedited case and vacated all dates because the District never properly served Father with its complaint, even though Mother was presumed properly served.
- Order Denying Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Student's request to continue an expedited hearing because federal law requires expedited hearings within 20 school days, and OAH has no discretion to extend that deadline.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH granted Student's motion to unexpedite and vacated the expedited dates because Student and District settled and withdrew the manifestation determination issue that had triggered the expedited hearing.
- Order Denying Student's Request to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied Student's unopposed request to unexpedite the hearing because the complaint still raised manifestation determination and disciplinary issues that must be heard on the mandatory expedited timeline.
- Order Denying Request to Consolidate Without Prejudice and Denying Request for Expedited HearingOAH denied Student's requests for an expedited hearing and to consolidate with a sibling's case. No discipline-related circumstances under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k) were alleged, and the consolidation request was a bare mention in the complaint.
- Order Granting Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH took the case off the expedited track. The only discipline-related claim concerned a January 2012 manifestation determination the parties agreed with, and there was no current or pending disciplinary action.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Unexpedite HearingOAH denied District's motion to unexpedite because Student's complaint alleged a denied manifestation determination review, an issue that must get an expedited hearing, and Student had not withdrawn it.
- Order Following OSC and Dismissing Expedited Portion of Student's Complaint Based on Failure to Participate in PHC or OSC, or to Prosecute or Advance the Expedited Portion of the ComplaintOAH dismissed the expedited portion of Student's complaint against RCOE because Student's parents filed no prehearing statement and did not answer calls for either the expedited prehearing conference or the order to show cause hearing.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference and Order to Show Cause Re Dismissal of Expedited Portion of Due Process ComplaintOAH ordered Student to show cause why the expedited portion of the complaint should not be dismissed after Student filed no prehearing statement and did not answer for the expedited prehearing conference.
- Order Granting Request to Unexpedite Matter and Confirming Continued Dates for Non-Expedited MatterOAH unexpedited the case on the parties' joint request. Student was back in school, so the only expulsion issue left was whether he was denied a FAPE while expelled, which does not need an expedited hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Non-Expedited Portion of CaseOAH dismissed the non-expedited FAPE portion of Student's case as barred by a prior settlement, but let both issues proceed as expedited challenges to the February 2013 manifestation determination.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Vacate the Expedited HearingOAH denied District's motion to take Student's case off the expedited track. Student's complaint suggested District suspended him without holding a required manifestation determination, so the expedited hearing must proceed.