California OAH special education order · December 9, 2015
Order Determining District's Amended Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2015100100, 2015100387 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH found District's amended complaint sufficient because it identified the challenged 2015 assessments and IEPs with enough facts for Student to respond, mediate, and prepare for hearing.
This case went to decision
Student v. Lowell Joint School District (consolidated): Lowell Joint School District must fund an independent auditory processing evaluation; three 2015 IEPs denied the student a FAPE. (2016)
Summary
Student filed a notice of partial insufficiency challenging Lowell Joint School District's amended due process complaint. OAH found the amended complaint sufficient. It clearly identified the issues: whether the April and May 2015 assessments were appropriate, and whether the IEPs dated April 22, 2015, May 18, 2015, and October 8, 2015 offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. It also gave enough related facts and a proposed resolution. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Pleading requirements are read liberally. A district complaint that names the specific IEPs and assessments at issue and the relief it wants will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, so parents should be ready to defend those offers on the merits.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2015100100 v.
LOWELL JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT,
LOWELL JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2015100387 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. ORDER DETERMINING DISTRICT’S
AMENDED COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
On November 23, 2015, OAH issued an order granting Lowell Joint School District’s motion to amend complaint and deemed the amended complaint filed the date of the order.
Student timely filed a Notice of Partial Insufficiency as to District’s amended complaint on December 8, 2015.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the sufficiency of the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) 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. (20 U.S.C.
§ 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV).) 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. (See H.R.Rep. No. 108-77, 1st Sess. (2003), p. 115; Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, 1st Sess. (2003), pp. 34-35.)
The complaint provides enough information when it provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, supra, at p. 34.) 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. (Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H., Sept. 10, 2009, CIV. 06-CV-0215-JL) 2009 WL 2957991[nonpub. opn.]; Escambia County Bd. 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, 8:04CV2657T24EAJ) 2005 WL 2850076 [nonpub. opn.]; but cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx.
772, 775 [nonpub. opn.].) Whether the complaint is sufficient is a matter within the sound discretion of the Administrative Law Judge. (Assistance to States for the Educ. of Children with Disabilities & Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities (Aug. 14, 2006) 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
The facts alleged in District’s amended complaint are sufficient to put the Student on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. The issues in the consolidated matters concern assessments conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of Student in April and May of 2015. The issues in the amended complaint concern whether IEP’s dated April 22, 2015, May 18, 2015, and October 8, 2015, offered Student a FAPE. District seeks an order that the assessments were appropriate and that the IEP’s offered Student a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. District’s amended complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Student to respond to the amended complaint, participate in mediation, and prepare for the due process hearing.
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: December 09, 2015
/S/
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings