California OAH special education order · February 26, 2015
Order Denying Notice of Sufficiency
OAH Case No. 2015020678 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH denied San Francisco Unified's notice of insufficiency, ruling that the District's argument that it was not the proper respondent for an independent charter school cannot be decided through a sufficiency challenge.
Summary
Student's complaint alleged that District, which Student said operated Gateway Middle School Charter, violated its Child Find duty by not finding Student eligible for special education until March 5, 2014, and denied Student a free appropriate public education. District filed a notice of insufficiency arguing it was not the proper respondent because the charter is independent. OAH said this was really a request for summary judgment, which OAH does not grant. Whether District is the right party or is liable must be decided by the hearing judge based on factual findings, and the complaint gave District enough notice of the claims to prepare.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. A district cannot use it to argue it is the wrong party, such as when a charter school's independence is disputed. That question goes to the hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- 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. 2015020678 v. ORDER DENYING NOTICE OF
SUFFICIENCY
SAN FRANCISCO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On February 9, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming San Francisco Unified School District. On February 24, 2015, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the NOI is denied.
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 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
Student’s complaint alleges that “at all relevant times” Student attended Gateway Middle School Charter, “a charter operated by the District.” Student further alleges that District failed to find Student eligible for special education until March 5, 2014, in violation of its Child Find obligations under the IDEA, and for a variety of factual reasons District denied Student a free appropriate public education.
District’s NOI asserts that the complaint is insufficient arguing that District is not the proper respondent because Gateway Middle School Charter is an independent charter. In essence, District is seeking an order of summary judgment, which OAH does not grant. The purpose of an NOI is to determine whether the complaint is sufficient to put the responding party on notice of the issues such that it can prepare for and participate in a resolution session, mediation and due process hearing. Whether or not District is the proper responding party, or has any liability, must be determined based upon factual findings by the hearing judge, and not by way of an NOI.
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).
The complaint when read in its entirety alleges sufficient facts to support the procedural and substantive claims articulated in the complaint, and is therefore sufficient to put District on notice of the claims so that it may prepare for and participate in a resolution session, mediation and due process hearing. District’s NOI is denied.
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: February 26, 2015
/S/
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings