California OAH special education order · September 2, 2014
Order Determining Complaint to Be Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2014080584 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because San Juan filed its notice of insufficiency at least 16 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
Summary
San Juan filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, along with a motion to dismiss in the alternative, and Student opposed. OAH found that Student served the complaint by fax on August 11, 2014. Even assuming San Juan received it on August 12, the August 28 filing came at least 16 days later, so the notice was untimely. The complaint was therefore deemed sufficient, all dates were confirmed, and the motion to dismiss was left for a separate order.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint, or the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient. Parents should keep proof of when and how they served their complaint, because the service date can decide whether a late challenge is thrown out.
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. 2014080584 v. ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT
TO BE SUFFICIENT
SAN JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 12, 2014, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming the San Juan Unified School District (San Juan).
On August 28, 2014, San Juan filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to Student’s complaint or, in the alternative, a motion to dismiss the complaint. 2 On August 29, 2014, Student filed an opposition to San Juan’s NOI and motion to dismiss.
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).
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. 4 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 San Juan’s motion to dismiss will be addressed in a separate order.
3 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).
4 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. 5 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. 6 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 7 The pleading requirements should be liberally construed in light of the broad remedial purposes of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the relative informality of the due process hearings it authorizes. 8 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 9
DISCUSSION
Student served his complaint on San Juan by facsimile on August 11, 2014. Even assuming that San Juan received the complaint the following business day on August 12, 2014, San Juan failed to file its NOI within the 15 days required by statute. San Juan filed its NOI on August 28, 2014, which is at least 16 days after it received Student’s complaint. The NOI is not timely. Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
5 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
6 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
7 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
8 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.].
9 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).
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: September 2, 2014
/ S/
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings