Facts

Sarah Loof was a 25-year-old woman who was a student with disability who attended an Upland Unified School District (UUSD) school for kindergarten during the 2004-2005 school year. For first through sixth grades, Sarah attended a traditional, independently operated, parochial school called Our Lady of the Assumption School. For the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years, seventh and eighth grades, Sarah was enrolled at California Virtual Academy, an online charter school. On October 6, 2011, Rita Loof, Sarah's mother, registered what she named Resurrection Academy as a private religious school through the California Department of Education online Private School Affidavit Form process. Rita renewed the registrations annually from the 2011-2012 through 2018-2019 school years. On May 2, 2019, Rita, UUSD, and Sara entered into a tolling agreement to toll the statute of limitations applicable to the issue and remedies raised. On August 13, 2019, Sarah requested a due process hearing before the California Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). Sarah's second amended complaint in her first case, filed on May 4, 2020, included claims related to the 2016-2017 school year. On January 14, 2020, UUSD filed a request for due process hearing in OAH. Over the course of eleven days in August and September 2020, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) heard the Consolidated Case "OAH Hearing." On November 24, 2020, the ALJ issued a decision and concluded that the UUSD prevailed on all issues and all of Sara's request for relief were denied. In particular, it found that Sara was not eligible for special education and related services after June 30, 2017, and was not entitled to a free appropriate education from the UUSD. On February 22, 2021, Sarah and Rita appealed the OAH's decision.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that defendant significantly impeded Rita's opportunity to participate in the educational decision-making process by failing to explain to Rita why Upland wanted to do additional assessments under an October 19, 2016 assessment plan after having conducted a triennial reassessment in 2015. Plaintiffs also contended that defendant denied Sara a free appropriate public education by failing to provide timely prior written notice in response to Rita's requests for independent education evaluations, provide timely prior written notice of its decision not to provide Student Kurzweil as assistive technology, timely convene an individualized education plan team meeting, timely file a request for a due process hearing from OAH, or timely assess Sara based on plaintiffs' repeated requests. Finally, plaintiffs argued that the tolling agreement signed by the parties did not permit defendant to raise issues about 2016 or issues about its individualized education plan and offer of a free appropriate public education from October 31, 2016, more than two years before defendants' due process filing.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions and maintained that the OAH's decision was correct.

Result

The court affirmed the Office of Administrative Hearings' decision and closed the case.