California OAH special education order · May 29, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013050587 · ALJ Susan Ruff
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described Student's success at a private parochial school but not what was wrong with the District's IEP offer. A claim about a spring 2014 evaluation was too speculative.
Summary
The District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint and also moved to dismiss one of Student's requested remedies. OAH held that Issue one did not identify which parts of the District's April 12, 2013 IEP offer were inappropriate. It explained that a hearing focuses on the district's proposed placement, not the parent's preferred placement. Issue two, about a comprehensive evaluation requested for spring 2014, was too far in the future to show any denial of FAPE, so OAH gave Student 14 days to amend and found the motion to dismiss moot.
Why it matters
A complaint challenging an IEP offer must say what is wrong with the district's offer, not just that the child is doing well in a private placement. Claims about future assessments may be too speculative to plead.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Gregory K. v. Longview School District (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307
- Ed. Code § 56502
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. 2013050587
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ALTA LOMA SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On May 16, 2013, Student’s parents on behalf of Student (Student) filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming the Alta Loma School District (District).
On May 24, 2013, the District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint. The District also filed a motion to dismiss one of the remedies alleged in 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 requirements prevent vague and confusing complaints, and promote fairness by providing the 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).
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
Student’s first issue alleges generally that the District did not offer Student a FAPE at the individualized education program (IEP) meeting held on April 12, 2013, “by failing to offer an appropriate educational placement and services.” Student’s complaint provides no factual details as to the nature of the District’s IEP offer and which specific parts of it that Student finds objectionable. Instead, Student’s factual allegations state that Student currently attends a private, parochial school and that Student is doing well with the services provided there. However, the focus of a special education due process hearing is on a school district’s proposed educational placement, not a parent’s preferred placement. (See Gregory K. v.
Longview School District (9th Cir. 1987) 811 F.2d 1307, 1314.) Student’s complaint does not allege sufficient facts for the District to understand the allegations against it. Student’s Issue one is not sufficiently pled.
Student’s second issue alleges that the District failed to offer Student a FAPE for the 2013-2014 school year by failing to offer Student a comprehensive evaluation in “the Spring, 2014” as requested by Student’s parents. Because the requested assessment is almost a year in the future, it is not clear what the basis for any alleged denial of FAPE might be at this 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).
time. The second issue is not sufficient to put the District on notice as to any alleged denial of FAPE and is not sufficiently pled.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section Title 20 United States
Code section 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). 8
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.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
6. Because leave to amend has been granted, the District’s motion to dismiss is
moot.
Dated: May 29, 2013 /s/
SUSAN RUFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 8 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.