California OAH special education order · January 16, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013010025 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE because it alleged Student attends a LACOE school and that neither agency offered assessments that could identify Student's needs.
Summary
Student's foster parent filed a due process complaint against Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District and the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). LACOE filed a notice of insufficiency, arguing the complaint alleged no facts showing LACOE had any responsibility for Student, took part in decisions, or provided services. OAH disagreed. The complaint alleged that Student attends a LACOE school and that 'neither entity' offered adequate assessments, which was enough notice for LACOE to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
Why it matters
When a complaint names more than one agency, a few specific allegations tying each one to the student, such as where the student attends school and what each agency failed to do, can be enough to keep that agency in the case. OAH reads complaints liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2013010025
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT; LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION.
On January 2, 2013, Student’s foster parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming the Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District (District) and the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE).
On January 14, 2013, LACOE filed a notice of insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 2 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).
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. 3 These 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 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
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. 4 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 5 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the IDEA and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 6 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 7
DISCUSSION
There are two respondents in this case – LACOE and the District. LACOE contends that Student has not alleged specific facts against LACOE. LACOE claims that Student does not assert any factual allegations that LACOE has any responsibility to Student, has participated in any decision making regarding Student, or has provided any special education placement or services to Student.
Contrary to LACOE’s arguments, Student alleges that Student is currently attending a LACOE school. Student’s complaint contains other specific allegations dealing with LACOE. For example, at one point, Student’s complaint alleges that “neither entity has offered assessments that could truly identify her areas of need.”
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put LACOE on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts to permit LACOE to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
4 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
5 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
6 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.].
7 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).
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Dated: January 16, 2013 /s/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings