California OAH special education order · July 28, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017061134 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because District filed its notice of insufficiency more than 15 days after Parent personally served the complaint, and District did not rebut the signed proof of service.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint on July 25, 2017. Parent's signed Statement of Service showed she personally served District on June 22, 2017, and she confirmed she handed it to the Director of Special Education. District suggested there was confusion about what was delivered but offered no evidence to contradict the proof of service. Because District's challenge came more than 15 days after it received the complaint, OAH found it untimely and deemed the complaint sufficient, leaving all dates in place.
Why it matters
A district has only 15 days from receiving a complaint to challenge its sufficiency, and a signed proof of service controls unless the district shows real evidence otherwise. Parents should keep a signed statement of service showing when and to whom they delivered the complaint.
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)
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
People named in the order
- Tara Alford, District Director of Special Education
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. 2017061134 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
DESERT SANDS UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On June 26, 2017, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Desert Sands Unified School District. Parent personally served District on June 22, 2017. On July 25, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency 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 OAH 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 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 filed her complaint on June 26, 2017. According to the Statement of Service, Parent personally served District with a copy of the complaint on June 22, 2017. During a telephone call with OAH staff on July 10, 2017, Parent confirmed that she personally delivered a copy of the complaint to District’s Director of Special Education, Tara Alford.
District informed OAH staff on July 10, 2017, that there was some confusion as to what was hand delivered to District and that District would be able to compare what was delivered to “Tara” with a copy of the complaint provided by OAH.
District did not offer sufficient evidence to controvert the signed Statement of Service indicating Parent personally served the complaint on District on June 22, 2017. As such, District filed its NOI more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint, and the 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 dates in this matter shall remain as scheduled.
DATE: July 28, 2017
TARA DOSS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings