California OAH special education order · January 10, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2012120753 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Green Dot because it did not make clear which facts applied to which of the three agencies named, so Green Dot would have to guess.
Summary
Green Dot Public Schools challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, which named Green Dot, the Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education. OAH found all seven claims insufficiently pled as to Green Dot because the complaint did not say which facts applied to which agency. Without that, Green Dot could not tell how it allegedly denied Student a FAPE or what remedy was sought from it. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint, or the case would be dismissed as to Green Dot and continue against the other parties.
Why it matters
When a complaint names more than one school agency, parents should tie each fact, claim, and requested remedy to a specific agency, or the complaint may be found insufficient as to that agency. The order also notes that a complaint mentioning expulsion is not treated as expedited unless the parent actually asks for an expedited hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Student v. Valley Center Union School District (2009) OAH Case No. 2009010785
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
Topics
Full text of the order
Published text of the OAH order. Page headers and numbers from the original PDF have been dropped.
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
In the Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2012120753
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF COMPLAINT
EDUCATION, LOS ANGELES UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND GREEN DOT
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
On December 21, 2012, Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), the Los Angeles Unified School District (District) and Green Dot Public Schools (Green Dot). 2 Green Dot was on Winter Break from December 21, 2012, through January 6, 2012 and asserts that its offices were closed during this time. Therefore, Green Dot received the complaint when it returned from Winter Break on January 7, 2012. Student has not challenged this assertion. On January 9, 2012, Green Dot filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
2 While Student indicates that he is bringing his complaint against the District, LACOE, and Green Dot, he only lists the District and Green Dot as parties to be named and according to the attached proof of service, only served the District and Green Dot. OAH originally listed only the District and Green Dot as respondents and therefore did not serve LACOE with the December 24, 2012 scheduling order. Based upon Student’s expressed intent to bring this complaint as to LACOE and LACOE’s filing of a Notice of Insufficiency, to be ruled upon in a separate order, LACOE is treated as a Party to these proceedings.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 3 The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the requirements of Title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. 4 A complaint is sufficient if it contains: (1) a description of the nature of the problem of the child relating to the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution of the problem to the extent known and available to the party at the time. 5 These requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the named parties with sufficient information to know how to prepare for the hearing and how to participate in resolution sessions and mediation. 6 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 7 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) and the relative informality of the due 3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
5 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
6 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
7 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
process hearings it authorizes. 8 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 9
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint alleges seven claims, all of which are insufficiently pled as to Green Dot. Student alleges he was expelled from the District and Green Dot at the beginning of 2012, but does not request an expedited hearing. Therefore, OAH does not treat this matter as an expedited case. Student’s complaint involves three local education agencies (LEA’s). However, the complaint allegations are unclear as to which factual allegation applies to which LEA. Therefore, Green Dot is required to guess which facts relate to Student’s contentions that it denied Student a free appropriate public education. (Student v.
Valley Center Union School District (February 18, 2009) Cal.Ofc.Admin.Hrngs. Case No.
2009010785.) Accordingly, Student failed to allege sufficient facts as to the issues in the complaint as they pertain to Green Dot.
Accordingly, the complaint is insufficiently pled as it fails to include adequate allegations to put Green Dot on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims and proposed resolutions to permit Green Dot to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled as to Green Dot under title 20 United
States Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II). 10 8 Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, No. 06-cv-0215-JL)
2009 WL 2957991 at p.3 [nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F. Supp.2d 1248, 1259-1260; Sammons v. Polk County School Bd.
(M.D. Fla., Oct. 28, 2005, No. 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 at p. 3[nonpub.
opn.] ; but cf. M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, at p. 3[nonpub. opn.].
9 Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children With Disabilities, 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006).
10 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 United
States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed as to Green Dot and proceed as to the remaining parties.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are confirmed as to the other parties.
Dated: January 10, 2013 /s/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings