California OAH special education order · February 8, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017010370 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its Notice of Insufficiency 29 days after receiving the complaint, missing the 15-day statutory deadline.
Summary
District filed a combined Notice of Insufficiency and Motion to Dismiss against Student's due process complaint. Student filed and served the complaint on January 9, 2017, and District did not file its challenge until February 7, 2017. OAH found the challenge untimely under the 15-day deadline and deemed the complaint sufficient by law. OAH also said it would not consider District's motion to dismiss unless District filed it as a separate noticed motion, and it confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A district that misses the 15-day window to challenge a complaint's sufficiency loses that challenge, and the complaint is deemed sufficient automatically. Parties also cannot bundle a motion to dismiss with a sufficiency notice. It must be filed as a separate motion.
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
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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. 2017010370 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
RIALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINT
AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS.
On January 09, 2017, Parent, on behalf of Student, filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Rialto Unified School District. On February 7, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency2 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).)
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 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).
2 District labeled it motion a Notice of Insufficiency and Motion to Dismiss. If District wishes that OAH consider whether OAH has jurisdiction over Student’s claims, District needs to file a separate Motion to Dismiss. OAH will not consider District’s Motion to Dismiss until District files a separate noticed motion.
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
Student’s complaint was dated, filed with OAH, and served on January 9, 2017.
District’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on February 7, 2017, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. 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: February 08, 2017
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings