California OAH special education order · May 16, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016041189 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Napa filed its notice of insufficiency on May 13, 2016, one day after the 15-day deadline ran.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Napa Valley Unified School District on April 27, 2016, and served it on Napa's attorney by fax that same day. Napa filed a notice of insufficiency challenging the complaint on May 13, 2016. OAH found the deadline to file the notice was May 12, 2016, so Napa's challenge was late. Under federal and state law, a complaint is deemed sufficient unless it is challenged within 15 days, so OAH deemed the complaint sufficient and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A district has only 15 days from receiving a complaint to challenge its sufficiency, and OAH enforces that deadline strictly. A notice filed even one day late is disregarded, and 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
- 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. 2016041189 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
NAPA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On April 27, 2016, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Napa Valley Unified School District. On May 13, 2016, Napa filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Napa’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).
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 April 27, 2016, and was served upon Napa’s attorney via facsimile on the same day. A NOI would thus need to be filed by May 12, 2016 to be timely. Napa’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on May 13, 2016, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. Napa’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Therefore, 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: May 16, 2016
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings