California OAH special education order · March 12, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014020766 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH denied District's notice of insufficiency because Student's complaint gave adequate notice of the issues, and District's argument that Student was not a resident went to the merits, not sufficiency.
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint. Student alleged that she attended a District school on an inter-district transfer while living in Long Beach, and that this made her a District resident for special education purposes. She claimed District denied her a FAPE by failing to assess her and failing to hold an IEP meeting, and by repeatedly referring her back to Long Beach. OAH found the complaint adequately described the problem and the facts, and held that District's claim that it had no obligation because Student was not a resident sought a ruling on the merits, which is not proper in a notice of insufficiency.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency tests only whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. A district cannot use it to get an early ruling on the central legal dispute, such as which district is responsible for a student on an inter-district transfer.
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)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2014020766
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
INGLEWOOD UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 19, 2014, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Inglewood Unified School District (District).
On March 7, 2014, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint. 2 On March 12, 2014, Student filed an opposition. As discussed below, the NOI is denied.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. 3 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. 4 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 District also filed a Motion to Dismiss, which will be addressed in a separate Order.
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
4 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. 5 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 6 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. 7 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 8
DISCUSSION
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 alleges that although she resided outside of District’s borders in Long Beach, she attended a District school, pursuant to an inter-district transfer. Student alleges that because of that inter-district transfer, she became a resident of District for special education purposes under the law. Student further alleges that District denied her a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by failing to assess her for special education and related services despite parent request, and by continuously referring her back to Long Beach, to address her concerns. Student further contends that District failed to hold an individualized educational program (IEP) meeting, again by referring Student to Long Beach, when Student’s parent provided District with an outside assessment diagnosing Student with pervasive developmental disability. District’s NOI states that since Student was not a District resident, District had no obligation to assess or provide her with 5 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
6 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
7 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.].
8 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).
services. Student’s opposition states that this is the central legal issue in this case, and cannot be addressed by an NOI.
The complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Here, the District’s NOI is not limited to the sufficiency of Student’s allegations, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits. Accordingly, the NOI is denied.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient 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.
DATE: March 12, 2014 /s/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings