California OAH special education order · April 22, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013040050 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient as to El Rancho Unified because the district filed its notice of insufficiency 21 days after the complaint, past the 15-day deadline.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against El Rancho, Montebello, and Downey Unified School Districts on March 29, 2013. El Rancho Unified (ERUSD) filed a notice of insufficiency on April 19, 2013. Its notice did not say when it received the complaint, so OAH treated the complaint as received on the filing date. Because the challenge came more than 15 days later, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient as to ERUSD without looking at its content and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A district that wants to challenge a complaint's sufficiency must do so within 15 days of receiving it, or the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient. Without proof of a later receipt date, OAH may count from the filing date.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
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. 2013040050
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
EL RANCHO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT, MONTEBELLO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND DOWNEY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
On March 29, 2013, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming El Rancho Unified School District (ERUSD), Montebello Unified School District, and Downey Unified School District as the respondents.
Twenty-one days after the complaint was filed, on April 19, 2013, ERUSD filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to the 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).
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. 3 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(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
DISCUSSION
The complaint was filed on March 29, 2013. ERUSD’s NOI contains no indication of when ERUSD received the complaint, but it acknowledges the complaint was filed with OAH on March 29, 2013. ERUSD’s NOI was dated April 19, 2013, which is more than 15 days after the complaint was filed and, in the absence of any contrary indication, deemed received by ERUSD. Thus, ERUSD’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Therefore, the complaint is deemed sufficient as to ERUSD.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient as to ERUSD under title 20 United States
Code section 1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Dated: April 22, 2013 /s/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings