California OAH special education order · February 5, 2015

Order Denying Sacramento City School District's Notice of Insufficiency as Untimely

OAH Case No. 2015010421 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian

OAH denied Sacramento City School District's notice of insufficiency as untimely because it was filed more than 15 days after the complaint was personally served, so Student's complaint is deemed sufficient.

Granted Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Sacramento City School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, which Parent filed on January 5, 2015 against both Los Angeles Unified and Sacramento City School District. The district filed its notice of insufficiency on February 3, 2015, with no sworn declaration showing when it received the complaint. The proof of service showed personal service on January 5, 2015, so OAH found the notice untimely under the 15-day deadline and deemed the complaint sufficient. The district may refile if it can show through credible evidence, including a declaration under penalty of perjury, that it received the complaint within 15 days of February 3, 2015.

Why it matters

A district has only 15 days from receiving a complaint to challenge its sufficiency, and OAH will rely on the parent's proof of service to set that date. Parents should file a proof of service with their complaint so the deadline can be enforced.

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)

Topics

notice of insufficiency untimely 15-day deadline proof of service multiple districts

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. 2015010421 v. ORDER DENYING SACRAMENTO

CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT’S NOTICE

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL OF INSUFFICIENCY AS UNTIMELY

DISTRICT; SACRAMENTO CITY

SCHOOL DISTRICT

On January 5, 2015, Parent on Student’s behalf filed a due process hearing request (complaint), identifying Los Angeles Unified School District and Sacramento City School District as respondents. On February 3, 2015, Sacramento City School 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. 1 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. 2 1 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).

2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).

DISCUSSION AND ORDER

Sacramento City School District’s NOI was not supported by a declaration under penalty of perjury that established when the district received the complaint. The complaint filed with OAH includes a proof of service establishing that the complaint was personally served on January 5, 2015, and presumably Sacramento City School District received it on that date. In the absence of credible evidence to the contrary, the NOI is untimely because Sacramento City School District did not file it within 15 days from the date it was received.

Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient, and the NOI is denied.

However, Sacramento City School District may refile its NOI if it can establish through credible evidence, including a declaration under penalty of perjury, that it received the complaint within 15 days of February 3, 2015, the date it filed its NOI.