California OAH special education order · October 26, 2016
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016100146 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Its detailed facts on all three issues and sub-issues put District on notice, and its proposed resolutions were well-defined.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which raised three issues with sub-issues about IEP development, procedural violations, and failure to assess in all areas of suspected disability. OAH denied the challenge. It found that the "Facts Related to the Problem" section described the issues in great detail and that the proposed resolutions, such as continued eligibility, a proper IEP, and compensatory education, met the statutory standard. Student's related motion to strike was found moot, and all hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint with a detailed facts section and clear proposed remedies will usually survive a district's insufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleading requirements liberally. Whether the facts are enough to win is decided at hearing, not at the notice stage.
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
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 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. 2016100146 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 30, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Elk Grove Unified School District. On October 17, 2016, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint.2
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).)
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.
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).
2Student filed a motion to strike on October 20, 2016, and District a response to that same day. Student’s motion to strike is moot as District NOI is denied.
§ 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
Student’s complaint contains three issues for hearing, each issue having several issues, which involve District’s purported failure to develop an individualized educational program to meet Student’s unique needs, procedural violations that denied Student a FAPE, and failing to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability. Student’s complaint alleges sufficient facts in all Issues regarding District’s purported failure to provide Student with a FAPE based on the allegations in the “Facts Related to the Problem” as they describe in great detail the issues and sub-issues for hearing. Therefore, Student alleged sufficient facts to put District on notice as to Issues 1 through 3, and the sub-issues, for hearing, and at hearing parties can argue whether the alleged facts are sufficient for Student to prevail.
Among Student’s proposed resolutions is that District continue to find Student eligible for special education services, develop a proper IEP and provide compensatory education. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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: October 26, 2016
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings