California OAH special education order · July 22, 2014
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2014070454 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because, despite 16 pages of background on old or time-barred issues, it described specific dated events and people tied to District's alleged FAPE failures in 2012-2013.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint, which alleged District failed to assess, hold an IEP meeting, and offer a FAPE for the 2012-2013 school year, including extended school year, while Student attended private school. The ALJ noted that much of the lengthy background revived issues already litigated or barred by the statute of limitations, citing a prior OAH case. Even so, the complaint described specific events, communications, dates, and individuals for the 2012-2013 year and sought compensatory education and reimbursement for the private placement. That was enough for District to respond, take part in resolution and mediation, and prepare for hearing, so all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Lengthy background on old or time-barred claims will not make a complaint insufficient if it also gives specific, dated facts about the school year actually at issue. Parents should focus their allegations on the timely period to avoid confusion.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2014070454
v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
UPLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On July 07, 2014, Student filed a Due Process Complaint 1 (complaint) naming Upland Unified School District (District).
On July 18, 2014, District timely 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
The complaint alleges: Student is 17 years old, resides within District and attends ninth grade in a private school. Student was enrolled in California Virtual Academy, a charter school program, for the 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 school years. Student left California Virtual Academy in 2012 and was enrolled in a private school. Student alleges District failed to offer Student a free appropriate public education for the 2012-2013 school year, including the extended 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. Although 16 pages of “Background”
beginning with Student’s first diagnosis of hypotonia at the age of one, involve complaints and revive issues which have already been litigated or are barred by the statute of limitations (See OAH case no. 2012070420 [Student’s claims against District prior to July 13, 2010, barred by the two year statute of limitations]), the complaint describes specific events and communications by date and the individuals alleged to have been involved, pertinent to the 2012-2013 school year. These events and communications concern District’s alleged failure to conduct assessments, convene an IEP team meeting and offer Student a FAPE. Student 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).
alleges, as the result of District’s failure to offer Student a FAPE, Parent seeks compensatory education and reimbursement for Parent’s private placement.
Student identifies adequate related facts, pertaining to the school year at issue, to permit District to respond to the complaint, participate in a resolution session and mediation and prepare for hearing.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: July 22, 2014
/S/
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings