California OAH special education order · June 21, 2016
Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016060544 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Lawndale filed its notice of insufficiency 17 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
Summary
Lawndale filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Lawndale admitted it received the complaint on or about June 3, 2016, but it did not file its notice until June 20, 2016, more than 15 days later. Because the challenge was late, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its contents and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates. Lawndale may still ask for clarification of the issues at the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint, or the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient. Parents should check the filing date of any notice of insufficiency against the date the district received the complaint.
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
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. 2016060544 v. ORDER DETERMINING
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LAWNDALE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL COMPLIANT
DISTRICT.
On June 3, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing complaint naming Lawndale Elementary School District as respondent. On June 20, 2016, Lawndale filed a notice of insufficiency regarding the claims raised in Student’s complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties to a due process hearing request have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency. (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
Student’s complaint was filed with OAH on June 3, 2016, and contains a proof of service declaring it was served on Lawndale the same day. Lawndale states in its NOI that it received Student’s complaint, “on or about June 3, 2016.” Lawndale’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on June 20, 2016, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. Lawndale’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient. Nothing in this order precludes Lawndale from seeking further clarification of the issues during the prehearing conference in this matter.
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: June 21, 2016
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings