California OAH special education order · March 29, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016030010, 2016020203 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH deemed Capistrano's amended complaint sufficient because Student's notice of insufficiency reached OAH four days after the 15-day deadline.
This case went to decision
Student v. Capistrano Unified School District (consolidated): Capistrano Unified denied FAPE by holding an annual IEP meeting without the parent on one day's notice; transportation claims denied. (2016)
Summary
Student filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Capistrano's amended due process complaint, which OAH had deemed filed on March 10, 2016. Capistrano opposed. The notice was dated and served March 23, but OAH did not receive it until March 29, four days after the 15-day deadline ran out on March 25. Because the challenge was untimely, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must reach OAH within 15 days of receiving the complaint. Serving it on time is not enough if OAH does not actually receive it, so filings should be confirmed as received by OAH before the deadline.
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)
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:
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2016030010
DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT ,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016020203 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On February 26, 2016, Capistrano Unifies School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Parent on behalf of Student. On March 1, 2016, Capistrano filed with OAH a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint and a proposed Amended Complaint. On March 10, 2016, OAH issued an order granting Capistrano’s Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. The order deemed the Amended Complaint as being filed on the date of the order, March 10,
2016. The Amended Complaint contains two issues.
On March 18, 2016, Student filed a Response to the Amended Complaint which specifically denies both issues raised by Capistrano.
On March 29, 2016, Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Capistrano’s Amended Complaint. The NOI is dated March 23, 2016. The proof of service attached to the NOI indicates it was served on both Capistrano’s counsel and OAH by both facsimile and mail on March 23, 2016. Capistrano filed with OAH an opposition to the NOI on March 28, 2016.
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).
OAH first received the NOI for filing by facsimile on March 29, 2016, at 10:52 a.m.
OAH also did not receive a mailed copy also.
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 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
Here, the Amended Complaint was deemed filed on March 10, 2016. Thus, the 15 day period runs out on March 25, 2016. Student failed to file her NOI with OAH until March 29, 2016, which is four days past the expiration of the 15 day limit. Thus, the NOI was not filed timely.
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: March 29, 2016
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings