California OAH special education order · May 6, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014040480 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Charter School filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after receiving the complaint, missing the statutory deadline.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint on April 7, 2014, against the School of Arts and Enterprise Charter School. Charter School challenged the complaint's sufficiency by filing a notice of insufficiency on April 23, 2014. OAH did not reach the merits of the challenge. Because the notice came more than 15 days after Charter School received the complaint, the complaint was deemed sufficient by law, and all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
The 15-day deadline to challenge a complaint's sufficiency is strict. A late challenge fails automatically, so the complaint goes forward without any review of whether it was adequately pleaded.
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)
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G. v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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. 2014040480 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
THE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND COMPLAINT
ENTERPRISE CHARTER SCHOOL.
On April 7, 2014, Student, through his legal counsel, filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming the School of Arts and Enterprise Charter School (Charter School). On April 23, 2014, Charter School, through its legal counsel, 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 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 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).
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
Student’s complaint was filed on April 7, 2013. Charter School indicates in its NOI that it received Student’s complaint on April 7, 2013. Charter School’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on April 23, 2014, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. 9 District’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
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).
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).
9 Charter school filed a response to the complaint on April 18, 2014.
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: May 6, 2014
/S/
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings