California OAH special education order · February 8, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016010654 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
Student's complaint was deemed sufficient because Long Beach's notice of insufficiency reached OAH after business hours on the 15th day, making it untimely.
Summary
Long Beach received Student's due process complaint on January 20, 2016, and later challenged the complaint as insufficient. OAH received the district's notice after 5:00 p.m. on February 4, 2016, so it was treated as filed on February 5, which was more than 15 days after the district received the complaint. Because the notice missed the statutory deadline, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its contents. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A district has only 15 days to challenge a complaint's sufficiency, and OAH counts filings received after 5:00 p.m. as filed the next business day. A late challenge means the complaint goes forward as filed.
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 Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016010654 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On January 20, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming (Long Beach Unified School District. On February 4, 2015, after 5:00 p.m., OAH received a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s complaint from Long Beach.
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).
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.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 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).
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
Student’s complaint was filed on January 20, 2016. Long Beach indicates in its notice of insufficiency that it received Student’s complaint on January 20, 2016. The notice was dated, February 4, 2016, but was not filed with OAH until February 5, 2016, because OAH received it after business hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) on February 4, 2016. This is more than 15 days after Long Beach received Student’s complaint. Thus, Long Beach’s notice of insufficiency was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
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: February 8, 2016
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings