California OAH special education order · May 25, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016050613 · ALJ Robert Helfand
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Antelope Valley served its notice of insufficiency by fax on May 24, 2016, more than 15 days after receiving the complaint.
Summary
Antelope Valley challenged the sufficiency of Student's May 4, 2016 due process complaint. Its notice of insufficiency was dated May 19 but was served by fax on May 24, 2016. That was more than 15 days after Antelope Valley received the complaint. OAH therefore did not review the merits of the challenge, deemed the complaint sufficient by law, and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A district must serve its sufficiency challenge within 15 days of receiving the complaint. A late challenge is not considered, and the complaint is automatically treated as sufficient. The date that counts is when the challenge is served, not the date written on it.
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 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 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. 2016050613 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ANTELOPE VALLEY UNION HIGH COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 4, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Antelope Valley Union High School District. On May 24, 2016, Antelope Valley filed with OAH a Notice of Insufficiency and Response to Due Process Complaint 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).
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 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).
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 May 4, 2016. The proof of service attached to the complaint indicates that it was served facsimile on OAH and Antelope Valley on May 4,
2016. Antelope Valley indicates in its NOI that it the complaint was filed around May 4,
2016. Antelope Valley’s NOI was dated on May 19, 2016, but the proof of service shows
that the NOI was served by facsimile on May 24, 2016. Thus, the NOI was filed with OAH on May 24, 2016, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint.
Antelope Valley’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 25, 2016 /s/
ROBERT HELFAND
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings