California OAH special education order · June 8, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016050914 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Garvey filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after the complaint was filed and served on May 20, 2016.
Summary
Garvey challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, saying it did not receive the complaint until May 23, 2016, when Student sent a second, identical copy. OAH found the complaint was filed May 20, 2016, and the proof of service showed it was faxed to Garvey that same day. Garvey offered no declaration that no one, including the person it was faxed to, received it before May 23. Because Garvey's June 7 notice came more than 15 days after filing, it was untimely, and the complaint was deemed sufficient.
Why it matters
A district has only 15 days from receiving a complaint to challenge its sufficiency. A proof of service can defeat a bare claim of later receipt, so a late challenge fails and the case goes forward.
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 46540-46541, 46699
People named in the order
- Rene Hernandez, Garvey School District staff (recipient of faxed complaint)
- Alma Guerrero, Garvey School District staff (recipient of second complaint copy)
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. 2016050914 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT. COMPLAINT
On May 20, 2016, the Office of Administrative Hearings received a complaint from Student naming Garvey School District as respondent. The complaint was accompanied by a proof of service declaring it was sent the same day via facsimile to Rene Hernandez at Garvey. On May 23, 2016, Student submitted an identical copy of the complaint with the only noticeable exception being an updated date and signature. The accompanying proof of service declared that this copy of the complaint was sent to Alma Guerrero at Garvey. On June 7, 2016, Garvey filed a notice of insufficiency 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 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
OAH received Student’s complaint and it was deemed filed on May 20, 2016. In the NOI, Garvey asserts that it received the compliant on May 23, 2016. Although OAH received a second copy of the complaint reflecting the new date and signature, that complaint was substantively identical and did not constitute nor did either party request it be considered an amended complaint. At this juncture, Student’s complaint remains filed as of May 20, 2016.
The NOI does not address the discrepancy in dates nor does it include a declaration attesting to the fact that the complaint was not received by anyone, including Ms. Hernandez, until May 23, 2016. The general statement in Garvey’s NOI indicating it received the complaint on May 23, 2016, does not overcome the initial complaint’s attached proof of service coupled with the fact that OAH received Student’s complaint on May 20, 2016. The NOI was not filed until June 7, 2016, more than fifteen days after the date the complaint was filed. Accordingly, Garvey’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline.
ORDER
1. As Garvey’s NOI was untimely, 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: June 8, 2016
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings