California OAH special education order · August 2, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Respondent Pleasant Valley School District
OAH Case No. 2016080021 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Pleasant Valley because it listed only issues against "district(s)" and remedies, with no factual allegations, and allowed 14 days to amend.
Summary
Pleasant Valley School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, which named both Pleasant Valley and Mesa Union. OAH found the complaint was only a list of issues against "district(s)" and a list of remedies, with no facts. Because of that, it did not tell Pleasant Valley what the problem was or the facts behind it. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed as to Pleasant Valley, and dates were vacated only as to Pleasant Valley because Mesa Union did not challenge the complaint.
Why it matters
A complaint that lists issues and remedies without facts can be found insufficient, especially when it names several districts without saying what each one did. Parents should give specific facts for each named agency.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2016080021 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL COMPLAINT AS TO RESPONDENT
DISTRICT AND MESA UNION PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. DISTRICT
On July 26, 2016, Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Pleasant Valley School District (Pleasant Valley) and Mesa Union Elementary School District (Mesa Union). On July 28, 2016, Pleasant Valley 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).
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, 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).
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.)
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.2
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint consists of a list of issues against “district(s)” and a list of remedies sought. It is devoid of factual allegations. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled as to Pleasant Valley, in that it fails to provide Pleasant Valley with the required notice of a description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem.
Dates set in this matter will be vacated as to Pleasant Valley only. Mesa Union has not filed a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s complaint.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D), as to Pleasant Valley.
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).3
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
2 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).
3 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed as to Pleasant Valley only.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated as to Pleasant Valley only.
DATE: August 2, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings