California OAH special education order · July 14, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016070369 · ALJ Joy Redmon
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused Torrance's request to limit each issue to its specific factual allegations, calling that request beyond the scope of a notice of insufficiency.
Summary
Torrance filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. It also asked OAH to limit each issue to the specific facts pled under it. For example, it wanted the assessment issue limited to the missing functional behavior assessment. OAH found the complaint gave Torrance enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation, and denied the request to narrow the issues as beyond the scope of a sufficiency challenge, though Torrance may seek that relief by a different motion.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice. Districts cannot use it to narrow a student's claims to the listed facts, but parents should expect that a separate motion could try to do so, so it helps to plead each issue's facts fully.
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
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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. 2016070369 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On June 28, 2016, Student filed a due process hearing complaint against Torrance Unified School District. On July 13, 2016, Torrance filed a notice of insufficiency regarding the issues raised in 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).
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Torrance on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Torrance to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Torrance seeks an order limiting Student’s issues to the specific factual allegations contained under each legal issue. For example, Issue 1 in Student’s complaint asserts that Torrance failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. Included in the factual allegations supporting this issue, Student claims that Torrance failed to conduct a functional behavior assessment. Torrance asserts that if the issue as pled be deemed sufficient, an order be issued limiting Student to challenging only the lack of a functional behavior assessment.
Torrance’s request is denied as beyond the scope of a notice of insufficiency. Nothing in this order, however, limits Torrance’s ability to file a different motion regarding its sought relief.
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. Torrance’s request for an order limiting Student’s issues to the factual
allegations asserted under each enumerated issue is beyond the scope of a notice of insufficiency and is denied.
3. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: July 14, 2016
JOY REDMON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings