California OAH special education order · September 20, 2017
Order Denying Student's Motion to Compel Response to Request for Due Process Hearing
OAH Case No. 2017040476 · ALJ Vernon Bogy
OAH denied Student's motion to compel a better response from District, finding District's amended response gave adequate notice of its position, addressed the material allegations, and stated its proposed remedy.
Summary
After Student amended the due process complaint and District filed an amended response, Student asked OAH to order District to file a procedurally adequate response. District opposed the request. OAH denied the motion. It found District's amended response put Student on notice of District's position, responded to the material allegations, and stated District's proposed remedy, which was a finding that the complaint lacked merit and Student was entitled to no relief.
Why it matters
The law requires a district to respond to a due process complaint, but OAH sets a low bar for what counts as adequate. A response that states the district's position, addresses the main allegations, and asks for a finding of no merit will usually be enough, so motions to compel a more detailed response are unlikely to succeed.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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. 2017040476 v. ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL REQUEST FOR DUE PROCESS
DISTRICT. HEARING
On April 10, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request with the Office of Administrative Hearings. On April 20, 2017, District filed a Response to Student’s Request for Due Process Hearing (“Response”).
On August 28, 2017, Student filed an “Amended Request for Mediation and Due Process Hearing” (“Amended Complaint”). On September 1, 2017, the OAH granted Student’s motion to amend and deemed the Amended Complaint filed. On September 11, 2017, District filed a Response to Student’s Amended Request for Due Process Hearing (“Amended Response”).
On September 18, 2017 Student filed a “Request for Order to Compel District to File a Procedurally Adequate Response.” On September 19, 2017, District filed an opposition to Student’s Request for an Order to Compel a Procedurally Adequate Response.
APPLICABLE LAW
The IDEA requires a school district to respond to a parent’s due process complaint within 10 days. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I).) When a school district fails to file a timely answer, the ALJ must order a response. Failure to respond to a complaint entirely is a violation of the IDEA, and absent the filing of a response or a prior written notice that serves the same function, a hearing cannot proceed. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I); M.C. v.
Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200.
DISCUSSION
Here, District’s Amended Response adequately puts Student on notice of District’s position on Student’s issues, responds to the material allegations of the Amended Complaint, and sets forth District’s proposed remedy, that is, an order finding the Amended Complaint to be without merit and Student entitled to no relief. District’s response goes in sufficient detail as to District’s response to Student’s allegations. Accordingly, Student’s Request to Compel a Procedurally Adequate Response to the Amended Complaint is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: September 20, 2017
VERNON BOGY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings