California OAH special education order · April 17, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015040201 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH found Student's letter-form complaint sufficient because it gave San Diego enough facts about the alleged termination of licensed vocational nurse services to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
Summary
Student's letter-form complaint raised one issue. It alleged that San Diego denied Student a FAPE by ending the licensed vocational nurse services she had been receiving at Morse High School, and it asked that those services continue. San Diego filed a motion to dismiss, which OAH treated as a notice of insufficiency. San Diego argued that the complaint lacked enough facts and that nursing services were not a FAPE issue within OAH's jurisdiction. Applying the liberal pleading standard, the ALJ found that the complaint gave San Diego adequate notice of the issue and related facts, so all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short, informal complaint, even a letter, can be legally sufficient if it identifies the problem, the basic facts, and the remedy wanted. Calling a sufficiency challenge a 'motion to dismiss' does not change the forgiving standard OAH applies.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2015040201 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On March 26, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming the San Diego Unified School District as respondent. The complaint, which was in letter form, contained a single issue On April 7, 2015, San Diego timely filed a Motion to Dismiss Complaint Due to Deficiency in Pleading and Failure to State a Claim for Which OAH Can Grant Relief, which is deemed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI).
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 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).
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. 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 sole issue in the complaint was whether San Diego failed to provide Student a FAPE by depriving her the services from a licensed vocational nurse. Student allegedthat she had been receiving services from a licensed vocational nurse at Morse High School, and that San Diego terminated the licensed vocational nurse’s services. As a proposed resolution, Student requested that San Diego continue to provide nursing services from a licensed vocational nurse.
San Diego contends that the complaint was insufficient because it failed to contain sufficient facts to put San Diego on notice of the claim being alleged. Additionally, San Diego contends that the issue of providing a licensed vocational nurse to Student did not relate to the provision of a free appropriate public education, and was not within OAH’s jurisdiction.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put San Diego on notice of the issuestated above, and provided adequate related facts about the problem to permit San 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).
Diego to respond to the complaint, participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, 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: April 17, 2015
/S /
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings