California OAH special education order · February 13, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013010992 · ALJ Peter-Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave enough facts about assessment, goals, and placement claims, and well-defined proposed resolutions, to put the District on notice.
Summary
The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised one issue with five sub-issues: that the District failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability, wrote inadequate goals, and that Student needed a different placement. OAH found the complaint described Student's unique needs, the needed assessments, the offers at issue, and the reasons for the requested changes. OAH also found the proposed resolutions (compensatory education, specific assessments, and a residential placement) were well defined. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that ties specific facts about a student's needs to each claim and lists concrete remedies, such as named assessments or a residential placement, will usually survive a district's sufficiency challenge under OAH's liberal pleading standard.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH CASE NO. 2013010992
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 29, 2013, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH), naming the Temecula Valley Unified School District (District). On February 8, 2013, the District submitted a timely 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. 1 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. 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) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (c)(1).
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 requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 1 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c); Ed. Code 56502, subd. § (d)(1).
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 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
Student’s complaint contains one issue, with five sub-issues, which allege that that the District failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disabilities, drafted inadequate goals and that he required a different placement. As to these sub-issues, the complaint contains sufficient allegations as to his unique needs, the assessments the District needed to conduct, the educational offers at issue and the reasons supporting his need for the requested assessments and different goals and placement. Accordingly, Student alleges sufficient facts supporting these claims in his complaint to put the District on notice, and therefore the complaint is sufficiently pled.
Student’s proposed resolution is that the District provide specified compensatory education, specific assessments and a residential placement. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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: February 13, 2013 /s/
PETER-PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings