California OAH special education order · October 17, 2016
Order Granting Motion to Dismiss Student's Issue 5
OAH Case No. 2016031019 · ALJ Dena Coggins
OAH dismissed Student's claim that the districts failed to adequately respond to the due process complaint, finding it unrelated to FAPE and outside OAH's power to order a district response.
This case went to decision
Student v. Vacaville Unified School District et al.: Vacaville and Sacramento City Unified must fund 188 therapy hours for inadequate mental health support, plus make-up speech services and assessments. (2017)
Summary
Vacaville moved to dismiss Issue 5 of Student's first amended complaint, which alleged that Vacaville and Sacramento failed to adequately respond to Student's due process complaint. Student opposed, and Sacramento did not respond. OAH granted the motion for lack of jurisdiction. It reasoned that the claim did not involve Student's identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE. It also found that while the IDEA and Education Code section 56502 require a district to send a response, neither gives an ALJ authority to order one, unlike the express sufficiency-review process.
Why it matters
A district's failure to send a proper response to a due process complaint cannot be litigated as its own hearing issue at OAH. Parents should frame claims around identification, evaluation, placement, or FAPE.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I)
- Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(A)
- Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026
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. 2016031019 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
DISMISS STUDENT’S ISSUE 5
VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT and SACRAMENTO CITY
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On October 10, 2016, Vacaville Unified School District filed a motion to dismiss Student’s Issue 5 of the First Amended Due Process Complaint, filed by Student on August 11, 2016. On October 12, 2016, Student filed an opposition. Sacramento City Unified School District did not file a response to Vacaville’s motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
Parents have the right to present a complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child.” (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6); Ed. Code, § 56501, subd. (a).) The Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear due process claims arising under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Wyner v. Manhattan Beach Unified Sch. Dist. (9th Cir. 2000) 223 F.3d 1026, 1028-1029 [hereafter Wyner].)
Section 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii) of the IDEA and California Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(2)(A) require a party receiving a complaint to send a response to the complaint to the filing party within 10 days after the receipt of the complaint. Further, within this ten day period, pursuant to Section 1415(f)(1)(B)(i)(I), for local education agencies that have not sent a prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the complaint notice, the local educational agency shall send to the parent a response that shall include:
a. An explanation of why the agency proposed or refused to take the action raised in
the complaint;
b. A description of other options that the IEP Team considered and the reasons why
those options were rejected;
c. A description of each evaluation procedure , assessment, record, or report the
agency used as the basis for the proposed or refused action; and
d. A description of the factors relevant to the agency’s proposal or refusal.
DISCUSSION
Student’s Issue 5 of the first amended complaint asks OAH to determine whether Vacaville and Sacramento failed to adequately respond to Student’s complaint. Vacaville moves to dismiss this issue, arguing this issue fails to state a claim over which OAH has jurisdiction. Student’s Issue 5 does not relate to identification, evaluation, or educational placement of Student, or the provision of a FAPE to Student. Moreover, while the IDEA and Education Code section 56502 create the obligation of a local education agency to send a parent a response after a parent files a due process complaint, neither grants an administrative law judge the authority to order a local educational agency to file a response.
This is in contrast to Section 1415(c)(2)(D) which requires an administrative law judge to evaluate the sufficiency of a due process complaint if a timely notice of insufficiency is filed.
The IDEA and Education Code section 56502 do not provide OAH the authority to require the District to file a response. For these reasons, Vacaville’s motion to dismiss Student’s Issue 5 is granted for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: October 17, 2016
DENA COGGINS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings