California OAH special education order · January 19, 2017
Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency
OAH Case No. 2017010444 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, holding that District's concerns about the time frame, statute of limitations, and prior settlements require fact-finding at hearing, not a sufficiency challenge.
Summary
District challenged Student's complaint as insufficient because it did not state the time frame at issue, and noted that earlier claims by Parent may have resolved similar issues. Student alleged that District excluded Mother from the IEP team and predetermined Student's placement, goals, and services. Student sought compensatory education, speech, and occupational therapy. OAH found the complaint gave District enough notice to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. It held that statute of limitations and prior-settlement defenses need findings of fact by the hearing judge and cannot be decided on a notice of insufficiency.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a sufficiency challenge to cut down a complaint based on statute of limitations or past settlements; those defenses are decided on the facts at hearing. Parents' complaints are read liberally as long as they describe the problem, related facts, and a proposed resolution.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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. 2017010444 v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
SAUGUS UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 10, 2017, Parent on Student’s behalf filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Saugus Union School District. On January 11, 2017, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the complaint is sufficient.
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).
Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) permits a party to request an expedited hearing to appeal a decision regarding a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing to occur within 20 school days of the date the hearing is requested. There is no provision similar to that in title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(A) for testing the sufficiency of a request for an expedited hearing pursuant to section 1415(k). Indeed, there is insufficient time to complete the NOI process in expedited hearings.
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).
§ 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 alleges he is 11 years old and has attended District since the age of three. He is eligible for special education based on his diagnosis of autism. Student attends a District- funded non-public school. Student claims District excluded Mother from Student’s IEP team, which allegedly pre-determined Student’s placement, goals, and services without parental participation. Student’s proposed resolutions are one year of compensatory education, speech and occupational therapy.
District asserts that the complaint is insufficient because it does not identify the time frame at issue. District also asserts that Parent has filed previously claims that resolved similar issues, which might limit the time frame for Student’s current claims. As a result, District argues the complaint is insufficiently pleaded as to the time frame of Student’s claims.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. The 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. District’s assertion that some or all of the claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations or prior settlement agreements is not appropriately decided in a notice of sufficiency. Those issues require findings of fact by the hearing administrative law judge. Student’s proposed resolutions are also 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: January 19, 2017
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings