California OAH special education order · December 16, 2016
Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016080462, 2016120084 · ALJ Elsa H. Jones
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the specific present levels and goals in the May 11, 2016 IEP that were at issue and explained why they were deficient.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's due process complaint. District argued the complaint made only broad allegations about deficient present levels of performance and goals in the May 11, 2016 IEP and gave only one or two specific examples. OAH disagreed and found the complaint sufficient. The complaint named the particular present levels and goals at issue, said they were deficient for the same reason as the example given, and described other IEP deficiencies, which was enough for District to respond and take part in resolution and mediation.
Why it matters
A complaint does not need a detailed example for every challenged goal. It is enough to identify each goal or present level at issue and explain that they share the same flaw shown in a representative example.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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 Consolidated Matters of:
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2016080462 v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016120084 v.
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT. ORDER DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY
OF DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
On November 29, 2016, Parent on behalf of Student (collectively, Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Monrovia Unified School District. On, December 14, 2016, District 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).)
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).
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
In its motion, District contends that the complaint contains only broad allegations as to deficiencies in the present levels of performance and goals in the May 11, 2016 individualized education program, and specifically cites only one or two specific examples of these deficiencies. However, the complaint specifically alleges the particular present levels of performance and goals that are at issue in the complaint, and that they are deficient for the same reason as was the example given. The complaint also specifies other ways in which the IEP is deficient.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District 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 District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: December 16, 2016
ELSA H. JONES
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings