California OAH special education order · November 18, 2013
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2013110099 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the IEP and District prior written notices at issue and gave enough facts for the District to respond to the private school reimbursement claim.
Summary
The District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised one issue: whether the District denied Student a free appropriate public education, entitling Parents to reimbursement for private school placement and transportation costs from 2012-2013 extended school year through September 2013. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the IEP in question and the District's prior written notices, and gave enough facts for the District to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A single, clearly stated FAPE and reimbursement claim that points to the specific IEP and the district's prior written notices is enough to survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads complaints liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Educ. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2013110099
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
CAJON VALLEY UNION SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 28, 2013, Parent on behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Cajon Valley Union School District (District).
On November 12, 2013, the District 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 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 presents one issue, specifically, whether the District failed to provide Student with a free appropriate public education entitling Parents to reimbursement for priviate school placements and related tranportation costs from 2012-2013 extended school year through September of the 2013-2014 school year. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
Student’s complaint identifies the Individualized Educational Plan in question as well as the District’s own corresponding prior written notices, and supplies adequate related facts about the problems to permit the District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the one claim is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
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).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
Dated: November 18, 2013 /s/
JUDITH PASEWARK
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings