California OAH special education order · August 14, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017060656, 2017030447 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only said District denied a FAPE without any facts explaining how, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint in a case consolidated with District's own complaint. OAH found the complaint insufficient because it only alleged that District denied a FAPE, with no facts showing how. Without those facts, District could not respond or take part in a resolution session or mediation. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days; otherwise Student's complaint will be dismissed and the case will go to hearing on District's complaint alone.
Why it matters
Simply stating that a district denied a FAPE is not enough. A complaint must describe the specific problems and the facts behind them, or it risks dismissal and the parent loses the chance to have their own claims heard. OAH also directed District's counsel to file separate documents separately, since a notice of insufficiency buried inside a response may go unnoticed.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
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 Consolidated Matters of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017060656 v.
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT,
GARDEN GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL OAH Case No. 2017030447
DISTRICT,
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
v. SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
On June 14, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Garden Grove Unified School District.1 On June 26, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’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).
1 On June 15, 2017, OAH granted Student’s motion to consolidate, and Student’s case is the primary matter in this consolidated matter.
2 Because District filed the Notice of Insufficiency concurrently with its response and not separately, OAH was not aware of District’s Notice of Insufficiency until it refiled its motion on July 25, 2017. In the future, counsel for District is directed to file separate documents separately to OAH.
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.
§ 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are not sufficient to put the District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint as all Student alleges that District denied a FAPE, with no facts how District did so. Student’s complaint fails to identify 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. Therefore, Student’s complaint is not sufficient.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, Student’s complaint will
be dismissed, and matter shall proceed to hearing as to District’s complaint.
5. All dates previously set remain on calendar as to District’s complaint unless
Student files an amended complaint in compliance with this order.
DATE: August 14, 2017
PETER PAUL CASTILLO
Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.