California OAH special education order · November 3, 2015
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015100654 · ALJ Jamie Errecart
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient in its entirety, rejecting Monrovia's notice of insufficiency because the complaint identified the issues, related facts, and proposed resolutions well enough for Monrovia to respond.
Summary
Monrovia filed a timely Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that Monrovia denied Student a FAPE by failing to assess him in all areas of suspected disability, failing to identify accurate present levels and develop measurable goals, failing to offer an appropriate placement and program, and committing procedural violations that impeded parental participation. Applying a liberal pleading standard, OAH found the complaint gave Monrovia enough notice to respond and to take part in a resolution session and mediation. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not need to include every fact to survive a sufficiency challenge. Clearly stated issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions are enough under IDEA's liberal pleading standard.
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)
- Escambia County Board of Educ. v. Benton (S.D.Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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. 2015100654 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 19, 2015, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) naming Monrovia Unified School District. On November 2, 2015, Monrovia timely 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, 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).
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. 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Monrovia on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. The complaint alleges that Monrovia denied Student a FAPE by failing to timely and appropriately assess him in all areas of his suspected disability, failing to identify accurate levels of performance and develop measurable goals, failing to offer an appropriate educational placement, failing to offer an appropriate program, and by violating procedural requirements set forth in the IDEA that impede the parents’ opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. Student is not required to include every fact pertinent to every allegation so as to preclude evidence outside the four corners of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the 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).
problem and proposed resolutions to permit Monrovia to respond to the complaint, and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, the complaint is sufficient in its entirety.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: November 3, 2015
/S/
JAMIE ERRECART
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings