California OAH special education order · April 18, 2014

Order Denying Bakersfield City School District's Notice of Insufficiency

OAH Case No. 2014040234 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky

OAH denied Bakersfield's notice of insufficiency as untimely because it was filed 16 days after the district received the complaint by fax, so Student's complaint is deemed sufficient.

Summary

Bakersfield City School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. Student served the complaint on Bakersfield by fax on April 1, 2014, and filed it with OAH on April 2. Bakersfield filed its notice of insufficiency on April 17 at 5:17 p.m. OAH ruled that the 15-day deadline runs from when a party receives the complaint, not from the filing date, so the notice was late and the complaint is deemed sufficient. OAH added that the notice would still have been late even if counted from April 2, because it was filed after 5:00 p.m. on the deadline day.

Why it matters

The 15-day window to challenge a complaint's sufficiency starts when the district receives the complaint, and filings after 5:00 p.m. count as late. Districts that miss the deadline lose the challenge entirely, and the complaint goes forward as sufficient.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
  • 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)

Topics

notice of insufficiency timeliness 15-day deadline service by fax complaint sufficiency

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. 2014040234

v. ORDER DENYING BAKERSFIELD

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’S NOTICE

BAKERSFIELD CITY SCHOOL OF INSUFFICIENCY

DISTRICT, GREENFIELD UNION

SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND KERN

COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT OF

SCHOOLS.

On April 2, 2014, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming, among other parties, the Bakersfield City School District (Bakersfield).

On April 17, 2014, at 5:17 p.m., Bakersfield 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).

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).

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 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

Although Student filed his complaint with OAH on April 2, 2014, the proof of service indicates that the complaint was served on Bakersfield by facsimile transmission on the morning of April 1, 2014. Title 20 United States Code section 1415 (c)(2)(C) specifically states that a complaint is deemed sufficient unless the other party files a notice of insufficiency within 15 days of receiving notice of the complaint, not within 15 days of the filing of a complaint. Here, Bakersfield filed its notice of insufficiency 16 days after it was served with the complaint by facsimile. Its notice of insufficiency is therefore untimely.

4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).

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).

Since Bakersfield’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient as to Bakersfield. 9

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: April 18, 2014 /s/

DARRELL LEPKOWSKY

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 9 Additionally, even assuming that the 15-day time period did not begin until April 2, 2014, Bakersfield’s notice of insufficiency would still be untimely as it was filed after 5:00 p.m. on April 17, 2014.