California OAH special education order · July 24, 2017

Order Determining Issue 1 of Student's Complaint to Be Insufficient as to Placer County Office of Education

OAH Case No. 2017070292 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky

OAH found Issue 1 of Student's complaint insufficient as to Placer County because the complaint stated no facts about the county office's role in Student's 2015-2016 placement. Student may amend within 14 days.

Denied Sufficiency of complaint

This case went to decision

Student v. Roseville Joint Union High School District: Roseville Joint Union High must provide 146.25 tutoring hours after ending special education without proper prior written notice. (2017)

Summary

Placer County Office of Education challenged the sufficiency of Issue 1 of Student's complaint. That issue alleged that Roseville and Placer County denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate placement in the 2015-2016 school year. OAH found that the complaint gave detailed facts about Roseville but none about any responsibility or involvement by Placer County, so the county could not prepare a defense or take part in resolution or mediation. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days; otherwise, the hearing will go forward against Placer County only on Issues 4 and 5.

Why it matters

When a complaint names more than one agency, it must state facts showing what each agency did or was responsible for. Facts about only one agency will not support a claim against the other.

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)
  • Ed. Code § 56502
  • 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
  • Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248

Topics

sufficiency multiple agencies county office of education placement leave to amend

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. 2017070292 v. ORDER DETERMINING ISSUE 1 OF

STUDENT’S COMPLAINT TO BE

ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH INSUFFICIENT AS TO PLACER

SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PLACER COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION

COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION.

On July 10, 2017, Parent on Behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming the Roseville Joint Union High School District and the Placer County Office of Education. On July 20, 2017, Placer County timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency solely as to Issue 1 of 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).

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.)

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).

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’s complaint alleges five claims. In Issues 1, 4, and 5, Student contends that Placer County denied him a free appropriate public education. Placer County argues that Student’s complaint is insufficient only as to Issue 1 insomuch as Student fails to include any facts supporting his allegations as the issue pertains to Placer County.

In Issue 1, Student alleges that Roseville and Placer County denied him a FAPE by failing to offer or provide him with an appropriate placement to meet his unique needs in the 2015-2016 school year. Student’s extensive factual information in the pages proceeding the delineation of Issue 1, as well as facts contained in the paragraphs following Issue 1 describe in detail facts relating to Roseville. However, there are no facts relating to any responsibility or involvement Placer County allegedly had in regard to Student’s education for the 2015- 2016 school year. Without such information, the complaint fails to provide Placer County with the ability to defend against the allegations made in Issue 1 or to viably participate in resolution or mediation sessions. For these reasons, Issue 1 is insufficient as to Placer County as presently pled.

ORDER

1. Issues 4, and 5 of Student’s complaint are sufficiently pled as they relate to

Placer County under title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).

2. Issue 1 of Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled as it relates to Placer

County under title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(D).

3. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United

States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).2

4. 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.

5. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed

as to Placer County only as to Issues 4 and 5 of Student’s complaint.

DATE: July 24, 2017

DARRELL LEPKOWSKY

Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 2 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.