California OAH special education order · March 9, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015021159 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its four claims and supporting facts gave District enough notice to respond, and held that District's residency challenge is a factual question for hearing.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's due process complaint. It also argued that Student's listed home address was in Manhattan Beach and that the complaint did not show residency in the district. OAH found the complaint sufficient: it stated four claims (lack of informed consent on an IEP, inappropriate assessment, inappropriate goals and services, and failure to produce educational records) with enough related facts for District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. The residency dispute is a factual question to be decided at hearing, not grounds for an insufficiency finding.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a sufficiency challenge to knock out a complaint over disputed facts like residency, since special education law has no summary judgment. A complaint that names its issues and gives basic supporting facts will meet the liberal pleading standard.
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. 2015021159 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 19, 2015, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
naming Torrance Unified School District.
On March 6, 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).
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. 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
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 alleges that he is a 14 year-old boy who moved to Torrance in 2011 8 from Palos Verdes, where he was eligible for special education and related services. In April 2014, District assessed Student and found him to be ineligible for special education. However pursuant to an addendum individualized education program dated April 2, 2014, District did provide Student with services. Student alleges that his subsequent June and October 2014 IEP’s contained minimal academic support and speech and language services that were insufficient to address his academic and social/emotional needs. The complaint further alleges that Student’s father was pressured to 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).
8 District argues that the home address listed on the complaint is in Manhattan Beach, and argues that there are no facts in the complaint by which his residency within District can be determined. This is a question of fact to be determined at the hearing. Special education law does not provide for summary judgment or for motion to dismiss based on disputed facts.
The questions raised by District as to Student’s residency do not render the complaint insufficient.
sign an IEP addendum in October 2014, without the document being discussed or reviewed with the IEP team. It also alleges that Student’s transition to high school has not been appropriately addressed. The complaint states four claims: that District failed to obtain informed consent on an IEP; that it failed to appropriately assess Student; that it failed to propose appropriate IEP goals, objectives, services and supports; and finally that it denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to produce his educational records.
Student’s complaint identifies the four issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims 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: March 9, 2015
/S/
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings