California OAH special education order · April 24, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015040532 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency after 5:00 p.m. on the deadline day, so it counted as filed the next day, outside the 15-day limit.
This case went to decision
Student v. Manhattan Beach Unified School District: Federal court vacated ALJ decision ordering Manhattan Beach Unified to make autism primary eligibility, fund a 1:1 ABA aide, and reimburse $4,190. (2015)
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint against Manhattan Beach Unified School District. The complaint was faxed to District and its counsel on April 7, 2015. District's notice of insufficiency was dated April 22 but filed with OAH after 5:00 p.m. that day, so it counted as filed on April 23, more than 15 days after District received the complaint. Because the challenge was late, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its contents and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint, and filings received after 5:00 p.m. count as filed the next day. A late challenge means the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. 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. 2015040532 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MANHATTAN BEACH UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On April 7, 2015 Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) naming Manhattan Beach Unified School District.
On April 23, 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).
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. 3 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 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(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
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. 4 These 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. 5 The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” 6 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. 7 Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. 8
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint was filed on April 7, 2015, and the proof of service indicates that the complaint was faxed to District and District’s counsel the same day. Although District’s NOI was dated April 22, 2015, it was not filed with OAH until after 5:00 p.m. on that day, resulting in a filing date of April 23, 2015, which is more than 15 days after the complaint was received. District’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
4 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).
5 See, H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.
6 Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.
7 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.].
8 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).
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under Title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: April 24, 2015
/ S/
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings