California OAH special education order · January 12, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015010002 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the mailed complaint was served, and the complaint adequately alleged a failure to offer occupational therapy.
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, saying it received the complaint on January 5, 2015. The proof of service showed the complaint was mailed on December 23, 2014, and District gave no evidence or explanation for the two-week delay, so its January 12 notice was untimely and the complaint was deemed sufficient. OAH also found the complaint sufficient on its merits. It alleged that District's own assessment showed significant fine motor delays and named the assessor, yet District did not offer occupational therapy. The missing assessment date did not matter because OAH's jurisdiction is limited to two years.
Why it matters
Districts must file sufficiency challenges within 15 days of service. A claimed late receipt date will not save an untimely challenge without evidence. A short complaint can still be sufficient if it clearly ties an assessment finding to a missing service and names a proposed fix.
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)
- Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2015010002 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
WASHINGTON UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On December 23, 2014, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming Washington Unified School District.
On January 12, 2015, District filed a notice of insufficiency 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 to the child; (2) facts relating to the problem; and (3) a proposed resolution 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).
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 December 23, 2014. District’s states in its NOI that it received Student’s complaint on January 5, 2015, but the proof of service attached to Student’s complaint indicates that it was served by mail on December 23, 2014. The NOI provides no evidence or explanation for two weeks of delay between the date of mailing and the date of receipt. District’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on January 12, 2015, which is more than 15 days after Student’s complaint was served and presumed received. District’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
In addition, 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’s complaint succinctly alleges that District’s assessment of Student demonstrated significant delays in fine motor skills, but District failed to offer Student occupational therapy services. The complaint does 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).
not allege the date of the assessment or District’s review of that assessment, but the jurisdiction of OAH is limited to two years. (Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (l); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(C)). The complaint also gives the name of District’s assessor.
Student’s 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 On each of the grounds discussed above, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
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: January 12, 2015
/S /
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings