California OAH special education order · January 11, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2016120829 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District's notice of insufficiency, faxed after 5:00 p.m. on the 15th day, counted as filed the next day and was untimely.
Summary
District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint by filing a Notice of Insufficiency. District received the complaint on December 19, 2016, and filed its notice on January 3, 2017, at 6:03 p.m. Because documents received after 5:00 p.m. are deemed filed the next business day, the notice counted as filed January 4, 2017, more than 15 days after receipt. OAH therefore deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its contents and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must reach OAH within 15 days of receiving the complaint, and filings after 5:00 p.m. count as filed the next business day. A late challenge is lost, and the complaint is automatically treated as sufficient.
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)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 1, § 1006, subd. (h)
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. 2016120829 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TEMPLE CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On December 19, 2016, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Temple City Unified School District. On January 3, 2017, at 6:03 p.m., 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 OAH 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).)
Documents faxed to OAH after business hours, 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m., are deemed filed on the next regular business day. (1 C.C.R. § 1006, subd. (h).)
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 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).
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 was filed on December 19, 2016. District indicates in its NOI that it received Student’s complaint on December 19, 2016. District’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on January 3, 2017, at 6:03 p.m., which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint since the NOI is deemed filed on January 4, 2017, as OAH received the NOI after 5:00 p.m. District’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: January 11, 2017
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings