Motions to dismiss
264 California OAH special education orders on motions to dismiss, newest first, each with a plain-English summary. Search and filter these orders.
2026
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied the charter school's oral motion to dismiss Student's FAPE claims as untimely. It also overruled the district's objection and set four FAPE issues against both agencies for a July 2026 hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Non-Expedited Hearing by Videoconference; Denying Motion to Dismiss Issue 1; Denying Motion to Bifurcate Issue 2; Denying Request for Status and Compliance Confirmation; and Denying Request for Procedural Clarification Regarding District SubpoenaOAH denied Riverside's motion to dismiss a claim based on a broken informal dispute resolution agreement, because Student alleged a denial of FAPE caused by the breach, not just contract enforcement.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied University Preparatory's motion to dismiss Student's second complaint because claim splitting, res judicata, and statute of limitations are affirmative defenses, and the IDEA expressly allows separate due process complaints.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Tahoe Truckee's motion to be dismissed as a party because the motion relied on an operational agreement and new facts, which amounts to summary judgment that special education law does not allow.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Las Virgenes' motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute because a self-represented Parent was confused about evidence uploading and OAH's own scheduling error caused the problem; the hearing was continued one week.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Non-Expedited Issue 53 and All Claims Through April 10, 2025OAH dismissed all of Student's non-expedited claims through April 10, 2025, because a prior settlement waived them. It also dismissed Issue 53, which challenged the settlement's validity, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over that claim.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Non-Expedited Issues 22-27, 29-33, and 46, for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed 12 of Student's non-expedited issues because they relied on general education laws outside OAH's special education jurisdiction. These included laws on discipline, school finance, safety plans, and after-school programs.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Expedited Complaint Based on Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel and Vacating Expedited Dates for Prehearing Conference and HearingOAH dismissed Student's expedited manifestation determination claims against Glendale under res judicata and collateral estoppel because a decision issued weeks earlier already decided the same issue for the same parties.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Sacramento City's motion to dismiss claims based on a disputed June 2025 settlement, because the motion seeks a merits ruling that requires evidence at hearing, not summary judgment.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH partly granted Castro Valley's motion to dismiss claims released by a November 2025 settlement, limiting the hearing to November 3, 2025, through January 14, 2026, while keeping later-arising and mixed fact-law issues.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues Two, and Three for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's ADA and Section 504 claims for lack of jurisdiction but refused, for now, to dismiss a claim that San Francisco failed to implement a 2023 settlement agreement.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of Jurisdiction as MootOAH denied San Francisco's motion to dismiss issues for lack of jurisdiction as moot because it targeted Student's original complaint, which was replaced by an amended complaint.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Student's Issues One, Two, and Three of Student's ComplaintOAH denied Simi Valley's unopposed motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because whether Parent revoked assessment consent, defeating a basis-of-knowledge claim, requires an evidentiary hearing.
- Order Granting Motions to Dismiss Casa Pacifica Camino a Casa and Oak Grove Center Jack WeaverOAH dismissed two nonpublic schools, Casa Pacifica and Oak Grove, from Student's case because they are not public agencies, and contracting with the district does not change that.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference; Order Dismissing Issues 12 and 13 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Issues 12 and 13 of Student's complaint for lack of jurisdiction after Student did not oppose Capistrano's motion. It set six issues for a videoconference hearing starting January 27, 2026.
2025
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Request for Due Process Hearing, as MootOAH denied Glendale Unified's motion to dismiss as moot because a separate order had already found Student's non-expedited issues insufficient and given Student 14 days to amend.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Denying Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Limit the Scope of the HearingOAH denied Palo Alto Unified's motion to dismiss or limit the hearing. The motion sought improper summary adjudication of factual disputes and was too vague to justify excluding evidence.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to ContinueOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Palo Alto's case on res judicata grounds because the June 2025 IEP offer was not litigated in Student's earlier case, but continued the hearing until that decision issues.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed El Dorado County Charter SELPA because a claim that it failed to enforce a state complaint finding is outside IDEA jurisdiction, but let Student try to prove a statute-of-limitations exception against Invictus at hearing.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Laguna Beach's Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's claims of coerced settlement agreements and retaliation against Parent as outside its jurisdiction, but kept placement, assessment, and procedural claims because disputed settlement waivers require a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issues on the Grounds of Collateral Estoppel, for Lack of Jurisdiction, and as Barred by a Prior Settlement AgreementOAH denied Cupertino's motion to dismiss. The prior expedited decision did not show collateral estoppel because the issues were not identical, and whether the settlement bars earlier claims is a factual question.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Ordering Briefing Schedule and Granting Continuance for Due Process HearingOAH denied Laguna Beach's third motion to dismiss after the District confirmed it had the full amended complaint, deemed the complaint filed June 6, 2025, set briefing deadlines, and continued the hearing.
- Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's challenge to a Penal Code 'stay away' order against Parent as outside its jurisdiction, but kept the discipline, after-school program, and FAPE claims despite Cupertino's ripeness and settlement arguments.
- Order Denying Laguna Beach Unified School District's Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice; Order Directing Service of Amended Complaint by Personal Service or MailOAH denied Laguna Beach's motion to dismiss without prejudice but found the district never received the full 178-page amended complaint. It ordered Parents to serve it by personal delivery or mail by May 27, 2025.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed Student's issue two for lack of jurisdiction on Downey's motion, denied Downey's request to continue the hearing, and set a three-day videoconference hearing starting March 4, 2025.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference, Dismissing the San Luis Obispo County Office of Education From the Expedited Portion of the Proceeding Only, and Dismissing the Notice of Insufficiency as MootOAH dismissed the San Luis Obispo County Office of Education from the expedited discipline hearing only, without opposition, because Student's complaint did not claim the County Office had any role in the expedited issues.
2024
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, Equal Educational Opportunities Act, and Title VI claims because OAH lacks jurisdiction over discrimination claims outside the IDEA.
- Order Granting Request for Continuance of the HearingOAH continued the hearing to November 5, 2024, based on Parent's doctor's note and District counsel's schedule conflicts, and denied District's requests to dismiss for failure to prosecute, without prejudice.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference Denying Motion to Strike, Denying Motion to Dismiss, and Deferring Ruling on Request for Official NoticeOAH denied Huntington Beach's partial motion to dismiss because deciding whether it was the responsible district at a May 2022 IEP meeting requires a full hearing, and denied its motion to strike.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied San Diego Unified's motion to dismiss issues as moot after Parents withdrew consent to special education, because mootness required a mixed factual and legal merits determination unsuitable for motion practice.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed Student's disability discrimination claim over bullying because the claim did not allege an IDEA or California special education violation, and set nine remaining FAPE issues for a videoconference hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Second Through Eighth Claims and Strike Proposed Resolution 1c for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's ADA, Section 1983, Section 1985, Bane Act, Government Code, and tort claims and struck a request for compensatory damages, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference, Granting Request for Continuance, and Denying Motions to Dismiss in PartOAH denied Student's statute-of-limitations motion against the District's assessment-defense claim, because the two-year clock began with Student's August 2023 IEE request, not the 2021 IEP meeting.
2023
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issues 1 Through 5, and Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 9 and 10OAH refused to dismiss Student's 2021 assessment-request claims as time-barred because Student alleged Fremont withheld the required procedural safeguards notice, but dismissed Section 504 claims as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Following Expedited Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Denial of Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's oral requests to dismiss Corona-Norco Unified's expedited complaint, ruling that federal discipline rules let a district ask OAH to extend a 45-day interim placement even if Parents never appealed.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference; Order Dismissing Non-IDEA ClaimsOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, Section 1983, and ADA claims because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them, and set ten IDEA issues for a September 2023 videoconference hearing.
- Order Clarifying Issues for Due Process HearingOAH dismissed Student's first five issues as time-barred. It held that the parties' private tolling agreements are not valid exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations, and Student showed neither statutory exception applied.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Hueneme's assessment complaint because the dispute over where Student must be assessed falls within OAH jurisdiction and needs an evidentiary hearing, not summary judgment.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed Student's claims about health and safety, Penal Code violations, neglect, and perjury as outside its jurisdiction. Whether a 2021 settlement bars other claims will be decided in phase one of the hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Summary JudgementOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss because it raised factual disputes and sought a ruling on the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
2022
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Request for ContinuanceOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Mt. Diablo's assessment case even though Parent signed the plan with conditions, because factual disputes require a hearing. OAH continued the hearing for Parent's and witnesses' unavailability.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied San Dieguito's motion to dismiss on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds because Student's claim about placement after Excelsior's closure arose after the first case was filed and was never decided.
- Order Granting in Part Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike Based Upon Settlement AgreementOAH dismissed Student's claims about conduct through June 30, 2022 and struck related remedies because a 2021 settlement waived them, but kept all claims arising from the March 2022 IEP and May 2022 amendment.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by Videoconference and Order on Motion to DismissOAH denied Santa Barbara's motion to dismiss time-barred claims because the complaint alleged the district withheld required procedural safeguards, which would support a statute-of-limitations exception if proven.
- Order Dismissing Anova Center for Education as a PartyOAH dismissed Anova Center for Education from Student's case because, as a certified nonpublic school/agency, it is not a public agency or LEA within OAH's due process jurisdiction.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference Granting Request for Continuance and Order Dismissing ClaimsOAH dismissed Student's ADA, Unruh Act, and Section 504 claims for lack of jurisdiction. It also continued the hearing to August 23, 2022, because Student's independent speech assessor became unreachable.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Unruh Act claims for lack of jurisdiction, but refused to dismiss claims from before April 15, 2020, as premature until issues are clarified at prehearing conference.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 4OAH dismissed Student's Issue 4, which alleged violations of Section 504, the ADA, and other civil rights laws, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 5 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Issue 5 because it alleged civil rights violations under Section 504, the ADA, and state civil rights laws, which fall outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss for Lack of JurisdictionOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, finding Odyssey's requests to move Student to an interim setting and implement an IEP without consent fall squarely within OAH's authority.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's retaliation claim against Elk Grove for lack of jurisdiction, because the claim arose under the ADA, Section 504, Section 1983, and constitutional law rather than the IDEA.
2021
- Order Following Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH denied Madera Unified's statute-of-limitations motion to dismiss or bifurcate as moot because Student withdrew all claims before September 14, 2019, and set seven narrowed issues for a videoconference hearing.
- Order Denying Motion for Joinder and Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied SDCOE's motion to join North Coastal Consortium and its alternative request to be dismissed, because compulsory joinder under Code of Civil Procedure section 389 does not apply to IDEA due process hearings.
- Notice of Issues Discussed and Agreed to on October 5, 2021; and Order Dismissing Facially Insufficiently Pled Matters and Matters Outside of OAH's JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's pre-April 2019 goals and services claims and 2015 and 2018 other health impairment claims. Student did not plead district misrepresentation or withholding of information. Section 504, ADA, Section 1983, and Unruh claims were also dismissed.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 8 and Denying Motion to Dismiss Issues 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7OAH dismissed only Student's Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claim for lack of jurisdiction, and kept six other issues because they differed from issues decided in Student's earlier case.
- Order Granting Oakland's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of ProsecutionOAH dismissed Student's case for failure to prosecute. Student's counsel repeatedly failed to exchange usable exhibits and witness lists despite prior warnings that no more delays would be allowed.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Larchmont Charter School's mid-hearing motion to dismiss because special education law has no directed-verdict-style dismissal; whether Charter is the responsible agency will be decided in the final decision.
- Order Dismissing California Department of EducationOAH dismissed the California Department of Education from Student's case because the facts Student pleaded showed the local school district, not the state, was responsible for Student's special education.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Ventura Unified School District's Motion to Dismiss ClaimsOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, Section 1983, ADA, and Unruh Act claims as outside its jurisdiction, but refused to dismiss older claims on statute-of-limitations grounds, leaving that question for hearing.
- Order Dismissing North Coastal Consortium of Special Education as a PartyOAH dismissed North Coastal Consortium as a party because an earlier order had already dismissed all claims against it without leave to amend, and Student could not rename it in a later amended complaint.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss San Diego County Office of Education as a PartyOAH denied San Diego County Office of Education's motion to dismiss itself as a party. Whether its case management of residential treatment placements created child find duties toward Student requires a hearing.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA/civil rights claim for lack of jurisdiction. It kept Student's claims that Enterprise's IEP enforcement effort violated parental due process rights and that Parents supplied requested medical information.
- Order Denying San Diego County Office of Education's Motion to Be Dismissed as a Party as MootOAH denied SDCOE's motion to be dismissed as a party as moot because Student filed a timely amended complaint naming the same three respondents. SDCOE may refile its motion against the amended complaint.
- Order Denying Conejo Valley's Motion to Dismiss Student's Issues 6, 7, and 8OAH denied Conejo Valley's motion to dismiss Student's Issues 6, 7, and 8 because the motion sought a merits ruling requiring factual findings, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Filing Date AdjustmentOAH denied Pleasant Valley's motion to dismiss for defective email service because it showed no prejudice, but reset the complaint's filing date to April 16, 2021, when Pleasant Valley actually received it.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Section 504 and ADA Claims for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Section 504 and ADA discrimination claim over hybrid instruction and bus access tied to a rejected mask waiver, because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 7(a), 7(b) and 7(c) for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's retaliation claims under the ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 because OAH has no jurisdiction over non-IDEA civil rights claims, even when tied to an alleged FAPE denial.
- Order Granting Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's entire complaint as moot because Parent withdrew, in writing, consent for eligibility assessments and any request for special education services, leaving no IDEA issue for OAH to decide.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims because it has no jurisdiction over them; the rest of the case proceeds as scheduled.
- Order Granting Motion to Limit IssuesOAH granted Guadalupe's unopposed motion. It limited Student's case to the IDEA issues in the complaint's claims-for-relief section and to events after the parties' May 12, 2020 settlement agreement.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Time-Barred Claims and Issues Barred by the Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel; Order Denying Second Motion to Amend Complaint; Order of DismissalOAH dismissed Student's entire case against Upland Unified because the remaining claims were time-barred or already decided in a November 2020 decision, and denied a second amendment raising the same barred or non-IDEA claims.
2020
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Based Upon Settlement AgreementOAH denied Rocklin's motion to dismiss two issues tied to a settlement agreement, finding Student's claims allege denials of FAPE from unprovided compensatory services, which OAH may decide.
- Order Granting El Dorado Charter Special Education Local Plan Area's Motion to DismissOAH dismissed El Dorado Charter SELPA from Student's case because the complaint did not allege the SELPA made decisions about Student or was responsible for providing Student's special education services.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss ComplaintOAH denied Student's second motion to dismiss the District's complaint because it was untimely, with no good-cause declaration, and it sought a merits ruling on factual disputes that require an evidentiary hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Long Beach Unified's motion to dismiss Student's complaint against Clear Passage Educational Center because Long Beach was not a named party and so had no standing to seek dismissal.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss ComplaintOAH denied Parents' motion to dismiss Anaheim Elementary's complaint. The district had properly mailed the complaint, Parents never served the district's attorney, and factual disputes about assessment access need a hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues for Lack of Jurisdiction and Granting Motion to Strike Request for DamagesOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, Section 1983, ADA, Unruh Act, and Government Code section 11135 claims and struck the request for damages, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those claims and cannot award damages.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Issue for Lack of JurisdictionOAH denied Chaffey's motion to dismiss Student's claim that inaccurate grade reporting denied a FAPE, finding the claim relates to FAPE and falls within OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Following May 22, 2020 Prehearing Conference for Hearing by VideoconferenceOAH dismissed Student's claims that Chaffey Joint Union failed to hold a student support team meeting or refer Student for a 504 plan as outside its jurisdiction, but kept the claim about failing to provide interventions.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's Issue Ten, which alleged violations of Section 504, the ADA, and state civil rights laws, because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims.
- Order Granting, in Part, and Denying, in Part, Motion to DismissOAH partly granted Castro Valley's motion to dismiss, barring claims before the January 22, 2019 settlement but keeping Student's ERMHS assessment claim because the settlement did not clearly resolve it.
2019
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Long Beach Unified's motion to dismiss because it raised questions of fact and special education cases have no summary judgment procedure. OAH also set the issues and hearing for December 17-19, 2019.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Long Beach's motion to dismiss Student's claims from September 2018 onward, because the District's argument that Parent never consented to services went to the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment.
- Order Granting and Denying in Parts Alta Loma School District's Motion to Dismiss IssuesOAH kept Student's claims about the district's $1,000 cost cap and late payment for an independent vision evaluation, but dismissed a relitigated timeliness claim and the Section 504/ADA/civil-rights claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 3, 4, 5, and 6 for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Student's ADA and Section 504 claims, and the requests for damages and fees under those laws, because OAH has no jurisdiction over them; the IDEA issues proceed.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Greenfield's due process complaint because Student gave no reason why the case should be dismissed without a hearing on the merits.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss ComplaintOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss the District's request to assess without Parents' consent. The dispute is within OAH's jurisdiction, and the motion sought a ruling on the merits.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH dismissed one of Student's issues as outside its jurisdiction, set five issues for an October 2019 hearing, and ordered statute-of-limitations evidence on older child find claims heard first.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Modesto City Schools' motion to dismiss Student's older claims as time-barred because whether the statute-of-limitations exceptions apply requires factual findings at hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed Issue 8 of Student's complaint because OAH has no jurisdiction over Section 504, Section 1983, ADA, Government Code 11135, Civil Code 54/54.1, or Unruh Act claims.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Modesto City Schools' motion to dismiss Student's claims as time-barred because a statute of limitations challenge seeks a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Dismissing Party for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed the California Department of Education as a party because Student's complaint made no allegations against it and did not show it provided services or made decisions about Student's education.
- Order Denying Motion To DismissOAH denied Empire Springs Charter's motion to dismiss because it asked for a merits ruling on a factual dispute: whether refusing to enroll Student during a special education assessment was disciplinary.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss based on an alleged settlement, finding no contract formed because Parent revoked her counteroffer before the District delivered a signed agreement.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss; and Setting Bifurcated HearingOAH denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss based on an alleged settlement because there was a factual dispute over whether a contract was ever formed, and ordered a bifurcated hearing to decide that question.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Golden Plains' motion to dismiss Student's case as moot because conceding a FAPE denial and offering relief did not end the dispute, and OAH has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Upland's assessment complaint, finding the new March 2019 assessment plan raised issues beyond the prior decision on the March 2018 plan.
- Order Denying Objection to District Filing and Motion to DismissOAH denied Parents' motion to dismiss Anaheim's assessment complaint, holding that preschool-age children can qualify for special education even though compulsory school attendance does not begin until age six.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Contra Costa Special Education Local Plan AreaOAH dismissed Contra Costa SELPA from Student's case because it was not Student's local educational agency, had no duty to provide Student a FAPE, and faced no allegations in the complaint.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Contra Costa County Office of Education from Student's ComplaintOAH denied the county office of education's motion to dismiss. It runs the school where Student is placed under stay put, which makes it a public agency providing special education and a necessary party.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Upland's assessment case. A respondent cannot withdraw a district's complaint, OAH has jurisdiction over evaluation disputes, and a prior settlement defense must be decided at hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue # 4OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claim because special education due process hearings cannot decide those claims; the case proceeds on the remaining issues.
2018
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Bellflower's FAPE complaint because whether the February 2018 IEP was an initial IEP Parents refused to consent to is a disputed fact requiring a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Upland's assessment case because the motion sought a ruling on the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure before a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Southern Kern's motion to dismiss Student's claims older than two years, holding that notice pleading lets Student try at hearing to prove an exception to the statute of limitations.
- Order Denying Partial Motion to DismissOAH denied Hayward's unopposed partial motion to dismiss, finding a prior decision on placement did not bar Student's new claim about inadequate related services under res judicata or collateral estoppel.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Bellflower's motion to dismiss Student's independent evaluation case. Whether Student's withdrawal from the district ended its duty to fund the evaluations is a merits question that needs a hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH granted Oxnard's motion to dismiss Student's Issue 5 as outside its jurisdiction, set four issues for an October 2018 hearing, and ordered the District to file an overdue response to the complaint.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH refused to dismiss Student's claim that Temecula inflated her grades, because it alleges a denial of FAPE. OAH dismissed her unopposed Section 504 plan claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Granting Motion for Official Notice and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to DismissOAH dismissed three of Student's amended claims. The civil rights and Regional Center report claims had already been dismissed, and there is no private right of action over teacher qualifications. OAH kept the manifestation-determination claim pending clarification.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Claims Outside of the Statute of LimitationsOAH dismissed Student's claims arising before the two-year statute of limitations because the complaint alleged no pre-2016 violations and no facts supporting an exception to the limitations period.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Chaffey's IEP-implementation case. Student gave no persuasive authority that a pending federal lawsuit on similar issues requires OAH to dismiss its administrative case.
- Order Granting Partial Motion to DismissOAH dismissed the Section 504, Section 1983, and 29 U.S.C. Section 794 parts of Student's Issues 2 and 3 because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those claims; the IDEA claims proceed.
- Order Granting Request for Official Notice and Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's autism-assessment issue already decided in a prior hearing and the Section 504/ADA claims, but let three other issues proceed because they were never litigated or the earlier stipulation was ambiguous.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference; Granting Continuance and Setting Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH denied District's unopposed motion to dismiss Student's bullying/retaliation and gifted instruction claims, because there is no summary judgment in special education cases and Student may show at hearing how they relate to FAPE.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's expedited manifestation determination appeal, finding the expulsion waiver did not waive IDEA rights and that factual disputes require a hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Number TenOAH dismissed Issue ten of Student's second amended complaint because its Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claims fall outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.
2017
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Number TenOAH dismissed Issue Ten of Student's amended complaint because its Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claims fall outside OAH's jurisdiction; the remaining IDEA issues proceed.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Denying Fairfield-Suisun's Motion to DismissOAH denied Fairfield-Suisun's motion to dismiss. The earlier OAH decision covered only an April 2017 IEP, not the 2015-2017 school years, and the self-represented Parent's behavior and harassment claims state IDEA issues.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Los Angeles Unified's motion to dismiss issues against El Monte as moot, because OAH had already dismissed El Monte from the case after finding Student did not live in its boundaries.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference, Denying Written Motion to Define the Statute of Limitations, Denying Oral Motion to Bifurcate Hearing Regarding Statute of Limitations, and Requiring Written Briefs Regarding Exception to Statute of LimitationsOAH denied District's motion to limit Student's claims to two years and its request to bifurcate the hearing, because whether a statute of limitations exception applies may require an evidentiary hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, and Granting in Part Motion to BifurcateOAH refused to dismiss Grossmont from Student's case because residency and FAPE responsibility are mixed fact-and-law questions. It split the hearing so all districts first litigate which district was responsible when.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part District's Motion to Dismiss and Denying District's Motion to BifurcateOAH dismissed only Student's disability-discrimination claims outside IDEA jurisdiction, refusing to decide statute-of-limitations issues by motion or to bifurcate them because the facts and witnesses overlap with the FAPE claims.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Los Angeles Unified School District; and Granting Motion to Dismiss Birmingham Community Charter High School, and El Monte Union High School DistrictOAH found Los Angeles responsible for Student's FAPE because Mother, the court-designated sole educational rights holder, lived in Encino. It denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss and dismissed Birmingham and El Monte.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss IssuesOAH dismissed Student's claims for implementation failures and extended school year before July 11, 2017, because a prior settlement agreement released all FAPE claims through that date.
- Order Denying Student's Request to Dismiss District's Case; Denying Student's Request for Summary Judgment; and Dismissing Student's CaseOAH dismissed Student's case after Parent failed to appear at hearing. It also denied Parent's requests to dismiss Oakland's assessment case and for summary judgment, because special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Order Denying Motion to Bifurcate IssuesOAH denied District's motion to bifurcate statute-of-limitations issues. Hearing them separately would cause delay and likely save little time. OAH dismissed Student's 2013-2014 IEP claim as time-barred because no tolling was argued.
- Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss. Student's claims allege denial of FAPE, which OAH can hear even when a settlement agreement is involved, and District never timely challenged the complaint's sufficiency.
- Corrected Order Partially Granting District's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Without Prejudice Motion to BifurcateOAH dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA bullying claim for lack of jurisdiction but refused to dismiss older claims as time-barred, holding California follows a 'knew or should have known' discovery rule under Avila.
- Order Partially Granting District's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Without Prejudice Motion to BifurcateOAH dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA bullying claim as outside its jurisdiction but refused to dismiss older claims as time-barred, because when Parent knew or should have known is a factual question for hearing.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to BifurcateOAH denied Berkeley's motion to dismiss and its request for a separate residency hearing. Residency is a factual question for the full hearing, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to BifurcateOAH refused to dismiss Los Angeles Unified and Birmingham Charter because which district must serve Student is a disputed factual question needing a hearing, but split off that residency issue to be heard first.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue NineOAH dismissed Issue Nine of Student's complaint because its Section 504, ADA, and state civil rights claims are facially outside OAH's special education jurisdiction.
- Amended Order Following Prehearing Conference and Denying Lodi Unified School District's Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue OneOAH denied Lodi's motion to dismiss Student's first issue as time-barred because the 2014-2015 school year reference was a typo, and the rest of the complaint put Lodi on notice of the 2015-2016 claims.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's unopposed motion to dismiss Fairfield-Suisun's complaint because it was really a summary judgment motion needing a full hearing on the facts, a procedure special education law does not allow.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH dismissed all of Student's claims arising before February 16, 2017, because Parents signed a settlement agreement waiving them, and OAH lacks jurisdiction to invalidate a settlement agreement.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part District's Motion to Dismiss Issue 10OAH struck the FERPA allegations from Student's records issue, which are outside its jurisdiction, but kept the claim that inaccurate or incomplete records denied Student a FAPE, and rejected District's mootness argument.
- Order Denying Los Alamitos Unified School District's Motion to Dismiss Issue 1OAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's Issue 1, which argued Father lawfully exited Student from special education, because the motion sought a merits ruling and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied Sequoia's motion to dismiss as unripe Student's claim that the district refused IEP-required transportation for the coming school year, and set the case for hearing on the transportation issue.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Antioch's motion to dismiss older claims because Student raised a factual dispute about the withholding-of-information exception to the statute of limitations, which requires a hearing.
- Order Granting District's Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Las Lomitas as a party because Student's only claims concerned high school transportation for 2017-2018, which became Sequoia Union's responsibility once Student left Las Lomitas.
- Order Denying Las Lomitas Elementary School District's Motion for a Ruling on Its Notice of Joinder as Moot; Order Denying Without Prejudice Las Lomitas Elementary School District's Motion to DismissOAH denied Las Lomitas's request for rulings: its joinder in Sequoia Union's dismissal motion was moot, and its own motion to dismiss was never properly filed because the fax never reached OAH.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's assessment case as moot, because District's complaint also sought to have Student made available for assessment, not just a signed assessment plan.
- Order Denying Request to Join a Party and Partially Granting Motion to StrikeOAH refused Bellflower's request to join Norwalk-La Mirada because civil joinder rules don't apply to IDEA hearings, kept older background facts, but dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA/civil rights claim for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Strike Sequoia's Motion to Dismiss; Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Sequoia's Motion to Dismiss; and Order Granting San Mateo SELPA's Motion to Be Dismissed as a PartyOAH kept Student's IDEA claim against Sequoia over an open-enrollment transportation waiver, dismissed the ADA, Section 504, and other civil rights claims for lack of jurisdiction, and dismissed the SELPA as a party.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue Three of ComplaintOAH dismissed Student's Issue Three, which alleged violations of Section 504 and state civil rights laws, because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to IDEA special education claims.
- Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part Ventura's Motion to DismissOAH refused to dismiss Student's claims against Ventura on statute-of-limitations grounds, holding that California follows Avila's discovery rule, but dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, Section 1983, and Unruh claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion to DismissOAH kept Student's claim that Irvine improperly disenrolled him, because wrongful disenrollment of a resident could deny FAPE and assessment, but dismissed Section 504, ADA, and civil rights claims for lack of jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's assessment case because it asked for a ruling on the merits, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues Outside the Statute of LimitationsOAH dismissed Student's claims older than two years, ruling that a complaint dismissed and refiled does not relate back to the original filing date the way an amended complaint does.
- Orders Following Prehearing Conference; Requiring Additional Briefing on the Stay Put Motion; and Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's case over its February 2017 IEP offer, because the motion sought a merits ruling that requires evidence at hearing. OAH also ordered more briefing on stay put.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's complaint because no legal authority allows dismissing a complaint over a district's alleged failure to provide requested education records.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary JudgmentOAH denied Student's fourth motion to dismiss District's assessment complaint, treated as a summary judgment request, because it sought a ruling on the merits and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Parent's motion to dismiss District's complaint because the motion argued the merits and mootness rather than matters facially outside OAH jurisdiction, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Dismissing IssueOAH dismissed Student's catch-all issue alleging unknown manifestation determination violations, because it named no actual problem District could defend against. OAH then set the remaining issues for an expedited hearing.
- Order Denying San Diego County Office of Education's Motion to DismissOAH denied the San Diego County Office of Education's motion to dismiss itself from the case, because whether it is a proper party is a factual question that must be decided after a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Motion to Continue the Mediation, Prehearing Conference and Due Process HearingOAH denied Parent's motion to dismiss District's assessment case because Parent withdrew her objections, and granted an unopposed first continuance of the mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's complaint because it sought a ruling on the merits, effectively summary judgment, which special education law does not provide.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issue No. 7OAH dismissed Student's Section 504 retaliation claim (Issue No. 7) because OAH lacks jurisdiction over Section 504 claims; the remaining issues proceed as scheduled.
2016
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss and: (1) Dismissing Issues 1, 4 and 5 in Their Entirety, and (2) Dismissing Those Portions of Issues 2 and 6 Beyond the Two-Year Statute of LimitationsOAH dismissed Student's claims about 2014 IEPs as time-barred, threw out the Section 504 and false-testimony claims for lack of jurisdiction, and limited the remaining issues to events on or after September 6, 2014.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Limit Issues for HearingOAH limited Student's hearing to claims arising on or after the October 10, 2016 IEP meeting because Parents' August 2016 settlement agreement released all earlier education-related claims.
- Order Following Phase One of Bifurcated HearingOAH dismissed Student's transition and goals claims as time-barred because Parent knew the facts more than two years earlier, but let narrowed graduation, exit, and notice claims proceed to Phase Two.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, in Part, and Order Bifurcating HearingOAH dismissed Student's 2014-2016 claims because they depended on District breaching a compromise settlement not meant to provide FAPE. It kept the 2016-2017 claims and bifurcated the hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Granting Motion to Dismiss a Portion of Student's IssuesOAH dismissed Student's Issues two through seven as duplicative or outside its jurisdiction. It kept two bullying-related FAPE issues and reframed Parent's negligence claim because negligence is a tort standard, not an IDEA standard.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue 5OAH dismissed Student's claim that the districts failed to adequately respond to the due process complaint, finding it unrelated to FAPE and outside OAH's power to order a district response.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH dismissed one of Student's issues as outside its jurisdiction and set four Student issues and one District assessment issue for an October 2016 consolidated hearing.
- Corrected Order Following Prehearing Conference and Partially Granting and Partially Denying Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA/civil rights claim for lack of jurisdiction and a duplicative reimbursement issue, but kept the independent evaluation timeliness claim because it states a real procedural violation.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Partially Granting and Partially Denying Motion to DismissOAH kept Student's claim that District failed to timely respond to an IEE request, but dismissed a duplicative reimbursement issue and Section 504/ADA/civil rights claims as outside OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Denying Motion to Strike and Motion to DismissOAH denied Temecula Valley's statute-of-limitations motion to dismiss because Student's amended complaint alleged facts that, if proven at hearing, could toll the two-year limit. OAH also refused to strike Student's opposition.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue 4 of ComplaintOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and California civil rights claims because OAH has no jurisdiction over them; the case proceeds on the remaining special education issues.
- Order for Supplemental Briefing on Motion for Dismissal of Student's Issues 1, 2, and 5OAH put off ruling on Los Angeles's motion to dismiss three of Student's issues. It ordered both sides to file sworn declarations on who drafted the earlier settlement agreement.
- Amended Order Identifying Issues for the Due Process HearingOAH dismissed Student's claim that Sacramento City reduced Section 504 Plan accommodations for lack of jurisdiction, and reframed the remaining eleven issues for the due process hearing.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Student's Complaint Without PrejudiceOAH dismissed Student's entire complaint without prejudice because the claims came before the two-year limitations period or after graduation. The complaint did not plead any exception to the statute of limitations.
- Order Identifying Issues for the Due Process HearingOAH dismissed Student's claim that accommodations under a 504 Plan were reduced, because it has no jurisdiction over Section 504 claims, and set out 11 reframed issues for hearing.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Dismissing a Portion of Student's Issues for Lack of JurisdictionOAH dismissed three of Student's issues because they alleged Section 504 and civil-rights discrimination claims, which OAH has no jurisdiction to hear, and set the remaining IDEA issues for hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss two FAPE claims tied to a settlement agreement, ruling it can hear denial-of-FAPE claims and cannot enforce the settlement's waiver against Student.
- Order Denying District's Motion to Limit Issue TimelinesOAH denied District's bid to bar Student's behavioral claims for fall 2014 under res judicata and collateral estoppel, because behavior was never actually litigated in the earlier due process case.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Student's Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Districts' behavior-assessment claim as moot after Parents consented, but kept the independent speech evaluation claim because the parties still dispute whether Districts must pay above their cost cap.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's complaint. Parent's revocation of consent three days before hearing is not retroactive, and the earlier dispute over the February 2016 IEP offer remained ripe for decision.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Elk Grove's assessment case, finding the dispute concerned a new January 2016 assessment plan, not enforcement of the parties' 2015 settlement agreement.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Garden Grove's motion to dismiss as moot, holding that Parent's revocation of consent for special education did not end Student's right to a hearing on District's refusal to assess visual processing.
- Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied Tehachapi's motion to dismiss on collateral estoppel grounds because Student's behavior claims were not litigated in the earlier case, which dealt only with home hospital instruction and mobility supports.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Long Beach Unified's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Student alleged that District's failure to implement a mediated settlement agreement denied her a FAPE, not merely a breach.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Ordering Student to Serve Kern County Superintendent of SchoolsOAH denied Kern's motion to dismiss for lack of service, but ordered Student to serve Kern with the complaint within five business days or face dismissal.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's post-hearing motion to dismiss District's assessment case as moot, because Student offered no evidence of moving and lived in District when the hearing was held.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Setting Due Process Hearing DatesOAH dismissed any non-IDEA claims in Student's complaint, including negligence and deliberate-indifference theories, because OAH has jurisdiction only over IDEA matters, and set the consolidated hearing issues and dates.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issue 4OAH dismissed Student's issue four, which alleged retaliation and interference against Parent under Section 504, the ADA, and the Unruh Act, because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those non-IDEA claims.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues Beyond the Jurisdiction of the Office of Administrative HearingsOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Section 1983 claims against Irvine because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them; the IDEA and Education Code claims will proceed as scheduled.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issues 9 and 10 of Second Amended ComplaintOAH dismissed Student's Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 claims because its jurisdiction is limited to special education matters under the IDEA and California law.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied San Mateo-Foster City's res judicata and collateral estoppel motion to dismiss because Student's new issues were never raised, litigated, or decided in the prior consolidated case.
2015
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss San Joaquin County Office of EducationOAH dismissed San Joaquin County Office of Education as a party because Student's complaint made no allegations that it made decisions about or provided services to Student. Student filed no opposition.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Determine Jurisdiction and Dismiss ComplaintOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss his own complaint as outside OAH jurisdiction because whether a binding settlement agreement even existed was a disputed factual question, not a facially jurisdictional one.
- Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied Panama-Buena Vista's motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds because Student's new claims, including the expedited expulsion issues, involve conduct after the period covered by a January 2015 decision.
- Order Granting District's Motion for Partial Dismissal of Student's ComplaintOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, Section 1983, and related state-law claims because OAH lacks jurisdiction over them; the IDEA claims will proceed to hearing as scheduled.
- Order Denying Respondent Winters' Motion to DismissOAH denied Winters' motion to dismiss six FAPE claims, ruling that whether Parent's signed Davis service plans waived Student's right to a FAPE from Winters raises factual questions for hearing.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Davis Joint Unified School District's Motion to DismissOAH dismissed most claims against Davis, the district where Student's private school is located. Service plan disputes belong in a state complaint, and 2013 assessment claims were time-barred, but the timely February 2014 assessment claim proceeds.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied an adult Student's request to dismiss District's due process case because Student's expected failure to appear is not grounds for dismissal; District may still prove its offer was appropriate.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue No. 4OAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and California civil rights claim because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those laws; the case proceeds on three IDEA assessment and present-levels issues.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied District's oral motion to dismiss Student's records-access claim, but warned that Student must prove which specific documents were withheld and how that denied a FAPE.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss All Claims Prior to June 30, 2013 and Motion to Strike Portions of Proposed Resolution One, and Denying Motion to Strike Proposed Resolution FourOAH dismissed Student's claims before June 30, 2013 as time-barred because Student did not show Parents were prevented from filing, but kept Student's request for reimbursement of out-of-pocket hearing expenses.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Rialto's motion to dismiss itself as an improper party because the motion amounted to summary judgment and the supporting declaration was based on hearsay without showing personal knowledge.
- Order Partially Granting Motion to Dismiss Claims Pursuant to the Statute of LimitationsOAH dismissed Student's child find, assessment, behavior plan, and mental health claims arising before May 6, 2013, because the complaint pleaded no facts supporting an exception to the two-year statute of limitations.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Val Verde's motion to dismiss based on a prior settlement waiver because the motion sought a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH granted, without opposition, District's request to strike Student's references to constitutional, Rehabilitation Act, and other federal claims, and set two FAPE issues for a June 2015 hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss an adult Student's complaint, finding District's argument that its FAPE duty ended when Student exited special education was a merits question requiring a hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss and Clarifying Issues Alleged in Student's Amended ComplaintOAH denied Berkeley's motion to dismiss on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds because Student's 2014 ESY implementation and prior written notice claims were not decided in the earlier due process case.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's assessment case because the motion sought a ruling on the merits, and special education law provides no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Redwood Consortium's Motion to DismissOAH kept Redwood Consortium in the case as a proper party. It is a public agency, and its representatives attended Student's IEP meetings and helped decide placement and services.
- Order Denying Cabrillo Unified School District's Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's child find, assessment, and services claims because the motion sought a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without PrejudiceOAH denied Berkeley's motion to dismiss on res judicata grounds without prejudice because Student's amended complaint made the motion moot.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Without PrejudiceOAH denied Folsom-Cordova's motion to dismiss without prejudice as moot. Student's amended complaint had been deemed filed, replacing the complaint the motion challenged.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part District's Motion to Limit Issues and Motion to Strike Issues and Proposed ResolutionsOAH limited Student's claims to the two years before filing, finding a family death and the district's late assessment did not toll the deadline; kept the fabrication claim but struck the fraud-sanction remedy.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue Number TwoOAH dismissed Student's Section 504/ADA discrimination claim against Huntington Beach because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those laws; the remaining IDEA issues proceed to hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue "A"OAH dismissed Student's Issue A, which claimed Newport-Mesa discriminated by failing to provide behavioral services, because OAH has no jurisdiction over Section 504 or ADA claims.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH dismissed Student's Section 504 claim because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters, and set five child find, assessment, IEP, and implementation issues for a February 2015 hearing.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issue FiveOAH dismissed Student's Section 504, ADA, and Unruh Act claims because its jurisdiction is limited to special education matters under the IDEA and the California Education Code.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss Fortuna Union High School District and Kelseyville Unified School District and Granting Motion to Dismiss Konacti Unified School DistrictOAH kept Fortuna and Kelseyville in the case but dismissed Konacti, ruling that a district that actually served and made decisions for Student is a proper party even if not the district of residence.
2014
- Order Denying District's Motion to Limit Issues Without PrejudiceOAH denied Panama's unopposed motion to limit Student's claims to the time after August 2014 enrollment, finding no credible proof of non-enrollment and noting OAH does not grant summary adjudication.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH dismissed Student's Section 504 and ADA claims because its jurisdiction is limited to IDEA matters, and granted District's unopposed request to continue the consolidated hearing to December 2014.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference, Granting District's Motion to Limit Issues, and Granting Joint Request for ContinuanceOAH barred Student from relitigating home-hospital placement in the March 20, 2014 IEP under collateral estoppel. Student may still litigate all other placement options for the two-year period.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied, without prejudice, District's oral motion to dismiss Student's English learner services claim for lack of jurisdiction. It set 11 issues for an October 2014 hearing with a Spanish interpreter.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue "A"; Order Sua Sponte Dismissing Student's Issue "B"OAH dismissed Student's Section 504 and ADA disability-discrimination claims against both districts because OAH has no jurisdiction over those laws; the remaining special education issues go to hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to partially dismiss claims released by a prior settlement agreement, because deciding what time period the complaint covers is a merits question and OAH has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order to Show Cause Why Case Should Not Be Dismissed; Continuing and Setting Prehearing Conference and Due Process Hearing DatesOAH ordered Student to show cause why his case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute after his attorney could not be reached for the prehearing conference, and moved the hearing dates.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 4 and 5OAH dismissed Student's ADA and Section 504 claims because it lacks jurisdiction over them, but declined to dismiss two proposed remedies, leaving those concerns for the prehearing conference.
- Order for Supplemental Evidence on Motion to DismissOAH deferred ruling on Twin Rivers' motion to dismiss for lack of standing and jurisdiction, ordering both parties to file certified Juvenile Court orders limiting Parent's educational rights by July 9, 2014.
- Order Following Prehearing Conference and Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. OAH cannot hear expulsion proceedings, but Student's complaint alleged an IDEA discipline violation under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(1)(E), which OAH can decide.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issue ThreeOAH dismissed Student's Issue Three alleging Section 504 and ADA violations because OAH lacks jurisdiction over those civil rights claims; the case proceeds on the remaining issues.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss the District's procedural FAPE issues, ruling they fall within OAH's jurisdiction and that federal rules let due process override pending CDE compliance complaints.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss El Dorado County Charter Special Education Local Plan Area as a PartyOAH dismissed El Dorado County Charter SELPA as a party because Student's complaint did not allege the SELPA made decisions about or provided services to Student.
- Corrected Order Following Prehearing Conference, Dismissing a Party, and Granting ContinuanceOAH dismissed nonpublic school Tobinworld II from Student's consolidated case because a private nonpublic school is not a public agency, and granted Oakland a short continuance over Student's objection.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied District's motion to dismiss Student's claim about missing occupational therapy in the 2014 extended school year offer as unripe, because the motion sought a ruling on the merits.
2013
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Portions of Student's Due Process Request; Order Dismissing West Orange County Consortium for Special EducationOAH dismissed the SELPA, claims before September 30, 2011, and negligence, civil rights, and custody-related claims. It kept the remaining FAPE claims against both districts and left remedy disputes for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss IssuesOAH dismissed Student's ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 claims against Yuba City Unified because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to IDEA special education matters; remaining issues proceed as scheduled.
- Order Granting Sutter County Superintendent of Schools' Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's ADA, Section 504, and Section 1983 claims against the Sutter County Superintendent of Schools because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims; the IDEA issues proceed.
- Order Denying in Part and Granting in Part District's Motion to Dismiss IssuesOAH refused to dismiss claims on statute-of-limitations grounds because District may have withheld full assessment results, but dismissed assessment and IEE claims Parents had released in an interim settlement agreement.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss Clovis Unified's complaint, holding it has jurisdiction to decide whether a new IEP offers a FAPE even while a prior OAH decision is under federal court review.
- Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied Val Verde's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction because Student's issues raised IDEA parent-participation and assessment claims, and the motion improperly sought a merits ruling on the pleadings.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss, Ordering Student to File a Statement of Service, and Resetting TimelinesOAH denied Hemet Unified's motion to dismiss for lack of service as premature, ordered Student to file a completed statement of service, and reset all timelines from the date the complaint was re-served.
- Order Denying Contra Costa County Probation Department's Motion to DismissOAH denied the county probation department's motion to dismiss itself from Student's juvenile hall special education case, finding the motion sought summary judgment on contested facts about the department's responsibility.
- Order Denying Contra Costa County Probation Department's Motion to DismissOAH denied the county probation department's motion to dismiss itself from a juvenile hall special education case, finding it disputed facts about the department's shared responsibility for education and so sought improper summary judgment.
- Order Denying Contra Costa County Probation Department's Motion to DismissOAH denied the Contra Costa County Probation Department's motion to dismiss itself from a juvenile hall special education case, finding the motion sought summary judgment on disputed facts about its responsibility.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Synergy Kinetic Academy and Synergy AcademiesOAH dismissed charter school Synergy with prejudice because the breach-of-contract claim is outside OAH's jurisdiction and the settlement made only LAUSD responsible for OT services and the IEP meeting.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing Conference of August 26, 2013; Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Student's Motion to Dismiss; Order Resetting TimelinesOAH refused to dismiss the District's complaint but ordered re-service and reset all timelines, because Student's family never actually received the complaint even though the District served it properly.
- Order Granting District's Motion to Dismiss Issue Two of Student's Complaint in Case Number 2013080367OAH dismissed Student's claim that RCOE's late assessments and IEP meeting violated the ADA, Section 504, and state civil rights laws, because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims.
- Order Granting Partial Motion to DismissOAH dismissed Student's issue four, which alleged violations of Section 504, the ADA, and state civil rights laws, because OAH has no jurisdiction over those claims.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied King City's motion to dismiss itself as the wrong district because residency was unclear from the complaint and an unverified letter from its coordinator could not settle the disputed facts.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Twin Rivers' motion to dismiss on statute-of-limitations grounds because, after Student amended to plead an exception, the motion became a summary judgment request requiring a ruling on the merits.
- Order Following Pre-Hearing ConferenceOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's triennial assessment case. The interim agreement waived only claims about the timely signature of the assessment plan, and a pending civil rights complaint elsewhere does not remove OAH's jurisdiction.
- Order Granting Riverside County Department of Mental Health's Motion to DismissOAH dismissed the county mental health department from Student's case because it was not a proper party: AB 3632 duties ended July 1, 2011, before Student's mental health referral.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Non-IDEA ClaimsOAH struck and dismissed all Section 504 and Section 1983 claims from Student's amended complaint because OAH has no jurisdiction over them; the IDEA claims go forward to hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss the District's complaint for late service, because Student received the complaint, timelines were reset, and Student showed no prejudice.
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss District's ComplaintOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss because District's complaint seeks permission to reassess Student without parental consent, a statutory IDEA claim, rather than enforcement of a prior settlement agreement.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to DismissOAH denied Student's motion to dismiss District's case over whether it remained Student's local educational agency. The case raises issues within OAH's jurisdiction, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Denying District's Motion to DismissOAH denied ABC Unified's motion to dismiss Student's case or limit remedies because the motion sought a merits ruling, and special education law has no summary judgment procedure.
- Order Following Prehearing ConferenceOAH denied the District's motion to dismiss as moot. Student's exit from special education with Parent consent did not end the case, because Student could still win compensatory education for past FAPE denials.
- Order Denying Student's Motion to Dismiss OAH Case No. 2012070228OAH denied Student's mid-hearing motion to dismiss the Districts' complaint as moot, ruling the Districts are entitled to findings on whether the May 2012 IEP offered a FAPE, even though parts were being implemented with provisional consent.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Coronado Unified's motion to dismiss over residency because Student's complaint raises FAPE claims within OAH jurisdiction, and the factual dispute about residence must be resolved at hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied Coronado's motion to dismiss because Student's FAPE claims fall within OAH jurisdiction, and the District's argument that Student lives outside its boundaries is a factual defense for hearing.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied SCUSD's motion to dismiss because whether SCUSD or the county office of education was responsible for a student in a juvenile hall school raised factual questions for hearing.
- Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Issues 4, 5, and 6OAH dismissed three of Student's claims because they did not involve special education under the IDEA. The claims concerned parent notice of an arrest, a suspension without a hearing, and release of records to the sheriff.
- Order Denying Motion to DismissOAH denied the District's motion to dismiss as moot because the District had not provided all requested relief and a prevailing-party finding could still let Parents recover attorneys' fees.
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part District's Motion to Dismiss and Strike Portions of Student's ComplaintOAH refused to dismiss Student's older IEP claims on statute-of-limitations or res judicata grounds but struck the attorneys' fees request, since OAH cannot award fees.