California OAH special education order · February 23, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017020699 · ALJ June R. Lehrman
OAH found District's complaint sufficient, rejecting Student's challenge because disagreement with the facts or claims of mootness must be decided at hearing, not on a notice of insufficiency.
Summary
Student filed a notice of insufficiency against District's complaint, which asked whether District's occupational therapy assessment was appropriate and whether District offered a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. Student argued the facts were erroneous, cursory, and included a moot claim. OAH found the complaint stated enough facts for Student to prepare for a resolution session and mediation, and held that whether facts are wrong or claims are moot requires findings at hearing. OAH also directed the parties to file separate documents for separate motions, rather than combining them.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency tests only whether a complaint gives fair notice of the issues; arguing that the other side's facts are wrong or its claims are moot must wait for hearing. Parties should also file each motion or opposition as its own document.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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:
ETIWANDA SCHOOL DISTRICT, OAH Case No. 2017020699 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT. COMPLAINT
On February 15, 2017, District filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Student. On February 21, 2017, Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to District’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).
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).
2 Student’s Notice of Insufficiency was combined in a single document with a Motion to Dismiss and an Opposition to District’s Motion to Consolidate. Each of these is ruled on separately. In the future, the parties are directed to file their documents pertaining to a particular motion separately, so as to pertain only to that motion. Pleadings shall not be combined into single documents, when addressing separate motions/oppositions.
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
Here, Student asserts that the complaint is insufficient because Student disagrees with facts alleged in the complaint. Student also claims the facts are erroneous, cursory, and include a moot claim. District’s complaint sufficiently states facts to support District’s two issues, namely whether its occupational therapy assessment was appropriate, and whether it offered a FAPE in the least restrictive environment. The facts are sufficient to allow Student to prepare for and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Whether District’s claims are moot or its facts are erroneous require findings of fact by the hearing officer and are not appropriate for ruling in a notice of insufficiency. Accordingly, the notice of insufficiency is denied.
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: February 23, 2017
JUNE R. LEHRMAN
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings