California OAH special education order · November 18, 2015
Order Determining Sufficiency of Complaint
OAH Case No. 2015110361 · ALJ Charles Marson
OAH found Student's one-issue complaint sufficient because it identified a dispute over grade-level retention and named the specific IEP meeting where Coronado denied Parent's retention request.
Summary
Coronado filed a Notice of Insufficiency against Student's complaint. The complaint raised a single issue: Parents asked that Student be retained back to second grade, and the request was denied at an October 1, 2015 IEP team meeting. The proposed resolution was retention in second grade. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the dispute over grade-level placement and the specific IEP meeting, giving Coronado enough facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A very short complaint can still meet the IDEA pleading standard if it clearly names the dispute, the IEP meeting where it arose, and the remedy wanted. Parents filing without a lawyer do not need lengthy pleadings to get a hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. 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. 2015110361 v. ORDER DETERMINING
SUFFICIENCY OF COMPLAINT
CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On November 3, 2015, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming the Coronado Unified School District. On November 11, 2015, Coronado 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. (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 1 A request for a due process hearing under Education Code section 56502 is the due process complaint notice required under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A).
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
Student’s complaint alleges a single issue: “Parents request retention back to second- grade. This was denied on October 1 2015 IEP team meeting.” It requests as a resolution: “ The resolution can be to retain back to second grade.”
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Coronado on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. The complaint adequately identifies a dispute over the proper grade level of Student’s placement, and also identifies the specific individualized education program team meeting at which the dispute arose and was discussed. It therefore gives Coronado adequate related facts about the problem to permit it to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
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: November 18, 2015
/S/
CHARLES MARSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings