California OAH special education order · August 4, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to Respondent Mesa Union Elementary School District
OAH Case No. 2016080021 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Mesa Union because it only listed issues and remedies against "district(s)" with no factual allegations, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
Parents filed a due process complaint naming Pleasant Valley School District and Mesa Union Elementary School District, and Mesa Union filed a timely notice of insufficiency. OAH found the complaint was only a list of issues against "district(s)" and a list of requested remedies, with no factual allegations. Because of that, it did not tell Mesa Union what the problem was or the facts behind it, so the complaint was insufficient as to Mesa Union. Student was allowed to file an amended complaint within 14 days, or the complaint would be dismissed as to Mesa Union only, and all previously set dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under the liberal pleading standard, a complaint must include facts that describe the problem, not just a list of issues and remedies. When more than one district is named, the complaint should make clear what each district did or failed to do.
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
- 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. 2016080021 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PLEASANT VALLEY SCHOOL COMPLAINT AS TO RESPONDENT
DISTRICT AND MESA UNION MESA UNION ELEMENTARY
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT. SCHOOL 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 August 3, 2016, Mesa Union timely 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.)
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).
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 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 Mesa Union, in that it fails to provide Mesa Union with the required notice of a description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem.
All dates set in this matter as to Mesa Union will be vacated.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D), as to Mesa Union.
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).2
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 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 Mesa Valley only.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
DATE: August 4, 2016
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings