California OAH special education order · January 16, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013010151 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against LACOE because Student alleged attending a LACOE juvenile hall school and ongoing failures by both respondents to assess and provide counseling.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint naming LACOE and Los Angeles Unified School District. LACOE filed a notice of insufficiency, arguing that Student alleged no facts specific to LACOE. OAH disagreed. It noted that Student alleged current attendance at a LACOE Central Juvenile Hall school, and that both respondents failed to assess Student appropriately and provide counseling through the present school year. Those facts gave LACOE enough notice to respond and to take part in a resolution session and mediation.
Why it matters
When suing more than one agency, a complaint survives a sufficiency challenge if it ties each agency to the student, for example through current placement, and says which violations continue into the present. Pleadings are read liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sammons v. Polk County School Bd. (M.D. Fla. 2005) 2005 WL 2850076
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:
STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013010151
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF COMPLAINT
EDUCATION and LOS ANGELES
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 8, 2013, Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) and the Los Angeles Unified School District (District).
On January 11, 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
LACOE contends that Student has named two respondents, LACOE and the District, but not alleged any facts specific to LACOE. In particular, LACOE argues that Student has not alleged facts to show that LACOE has any responsibility to Student, has participated in any decision making regarding Student or has provided any special education services or placement to Student.
Contrary to LACOE’s position, Student alleges that Student is currently attending a LACOE Central Juvenile Hall school. Student’s complaint specifies which of the alleged violations involve past events and which continue to the present school year (and Student’s present placement). For example, Student alleges that both respondents have failed to assess Student appropriately and provide appropriate counseling services up to and including the present school year.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put LACOE on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint against LACOE. Student’s complaint identifies the 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).
issues and adequate related facts to permit LACOE to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
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