California OAH special education order · September 8, 2016
Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016090128 · ALJ Marian H. Tully
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to LACOE because it alleged only that LAUSD and the charter operate under LACOE's authority, without describing any problem or facts involving LACOE.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint against Los Angeles Unified School District, Soledad Enrichment Action Charter, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education, and LACOE filed a notice of insufficiency. OAH found that the only allegation against LACOE was that the other two respondents operate under its authority. That allegation of oversight did not give LACOE notice of a problem or the facts behind it. Student was given 14 days to amend, or LACOE will be dismissed while the case continues against LAUSD and the charter, whose dates remain confirmed.
Why it matters
Naming a county office or other supervising agency is not enough. The complaint must state specific facts about what that agency itself did or failed to do, or it can be dropped from the case.
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)
- 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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2016090128 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT, SOLEDAD ENRICHMENT
ACTION CHARTER AND LOS ANGELES
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION.
On August 24, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Soledad Enrichment Action Charter (SEAC), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) and Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE). On September 2, 2016, LACOE filed a Notice of Insufficiency (NOI) as to the 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 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).
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, as against LACOE, alleges only that LAUSD and SEAC operate under the authority of LACOE. Student’s complaint does not provide LACOE with the required notice of a description of the problem and the facts relating to the problem. An allegation that LACOE has oversight over other respondents is insufficient to provide LACOE with notice of the problem and facts that may relate to it.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D) as to respondent LACOE only.
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.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, respondent LACOE will be
dismissed and the matter will continue with regard to respondents LAUSD and SEAC.
2 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
5. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed as to LAUSD and SEAC.
DATE: September 8, 2016
MARIAN H. TULLY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings