California OAH special education order · May 5, 2015
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel Tamalpais to File a Response to Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015010202 · ALJ B. Andrea Miles
OAH denied Student's motion to make Tamalpais file a response to the due process complaint. Federal and state law require a district response but do not give an ALJ power to order one.
This case went to decision
Student v. Tamalpais Union High School District: Tamalpais Union High must train staff on transition plans after an IEP meeting lacked anyone with authority to decide services. (2015)
Summary
Student's attorney asked OAH to order Tamalpais Union High School District to file a response to Student's due process complaint. Tamalpais opposed the motion. The ALJ explained that the IDEA and Education Code section 56502 require a district to send a response within 10 days, but neither law gives an administrative law judge the power to order a district to file one. The law does give ALJs power to rule on complaint sufficiency, so the ALJ found the difference meaningful and denied the motion.
Why it matters
A district's failure to send the required response to a due process complaint cannot be fixed by a motion to compel at OAH. Parents and advocates should look to other ways to address the missing response, such as raising it at hearing or in discovery.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(2)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
People named in the order
- Peter Sturges, Attorney for Student
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. 2015010202 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL TAMALPAIS
TAMALPAIS UNION HIGH SCHOOL TO FILE A RESPONSE TO DUE
DISTRICT. PROCESS COMPLAINT
On December 16, 2014, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) naming Tamalpais Union High School District. On April 29, 2015, Attorney Peter Sturges, on behalf of Student, filed a motion for compel Tamalpais to file a response to Student’s complaint. On May 4, 22015, Tamalpais filed its opposition to Student’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act section 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii), and California Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(2)(A) require a party receiving a complaint to send a response to the complaint to the filing party within 10 days after the receipt of the complaint. Further, within this ten day period, pursuant to Section 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I), for local education agencies that have not sent a prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the complaint notice, the local educational agency shall send to the parent a response that shall include:
a. An explanation of why the agency proposed or refused to take the action
raised in the complaint;
b. A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the
reasons why those options were rejected;
c. A description of each evaluation procedure , assessment, record, or report
the agency used as the basis for the proposed or refused action; and
d. A description of the factors relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.
DISCUSSION
Student requests that the Office of Administrative Hearings order Tamalpais to file a response to Student’s complaint. While the IDEA and Education Code section 56502 create the obligation of a local education agency to send a parent a response after a parent files a due process complaint, neither grants an administrative law judge the authority to order a local educational agency to file a response. This is in contrast to Section 1415(c)(2)(D)
which requires an administrative law judge to evaluate the sufficiency of a due process complaint if a timely notice of insufficiency is filed. Thus, the IDEA and Education Code section 56502 do not provide OAH the authority to require the District to file a response.
Accordingly, Student’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 5, 2015
/ S/
B. ANDREA MILES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings