California OAH special education order · September 29, 2017
Order Granting Motion to Compel
OAH Case No. 2017080149 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH ordered Los Angeles Unified to file a real written response to Student's complaint, finding its letter, which only restated the issues and one sentence about a 2009 IEP meeting, legally insufficient.
Summary
Student asked OAH to compel Los Angeles Unified to respond to his 33-page, 10-issue due process complaint, and the district did not oppose. The district's only 'response' was a short letter from a due process specialist that repeated Student's issues and proposed resolutions. Its sole explanation was that it had considered input from the November 2009 IEP team meeting. Relying on the IDEA's 10-day response requirement and M.C. v. Antelope Valley, OAH found the letter insufficient and ordered a comprehensive written response by October 3, 2017.
Why it matters
A district's response to a due process complaint must actually explain its position, because families have no discovery in IDEA cases and need to know the defenses before hearing. Parents who get a boilerplate letter can ask OAH to compel a real response.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(2)(A)
- 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. 2017080149 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
COMPEL
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On September 18, 2017, Student filed a motion to compel Los Angeles Unified School District to provide it with a response to Student’s request for due process (complaint).
Los Angeles did not respond to the motion.
APPLICABLE LAW
When a student files a complaint pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, the IDEA requires the named school district to provide a written response to the complaint within 10 days of filing. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B); Ed. Code § 56502 subd. (d)(2)(A).) The Ninth Circuit recently emphasized the importance of the school district’s response in M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, at pages 1199-1200. The court held that OAH could not hear a case unless the school district has provided the student with a written response to the complaint. If a response is not provided to the student, he is forced to prepare for hearing without knowledge of his opponents defenses. This is particularly true in IDEA cases because there is no discovery process. (Ibid.)
DISCUSSION
Student filed his complaint on July 31, 2017.1 The complaint is 33 pages long and contains 10 issues. In the complaint Student claims that while he was eligible for special education in Los Angeles from 2007 to 2009, he was wrongfully exited from special education in 2009. Student claims that he should have been eligible for special education for the two years preceding the filing of his complaint, and also makes other claims.
The complaint was received by OAH after 5:00 p.m. on July 28, 2017, so it is deemed filed on July 31, 2017, the next business day.
Student attached to his motion to compel the “response” he received from Los Angeles. The “response” is a letter from a Los Angeles due process specialist, two and one- half pages in length, and merely recites each of Student’s 10 issues, as well as each of Student’s proposed resolutions. Then it states “The District did not offer placement and services because: The District considered input from the IEP [Individualized Education Program] team members at the 11/05/09 IEP team meeting.” The next paragraph discusses participation in a resolution session and mediation, and the letter ends with a paragraph that provides the telephone number for the due process specialist. This “response” does not comply with either statutory or case law, and is insufficient. Los Angeles shall, within two business days from the date of this order, provide Student with an actual written response to his complaint that meets the requirements of title 20 U.S.C., section 1415, subdivision (c)(2)(B).
ORDER
Los Angeles shall file with OAH, and serve on Student, a comprehensive written response to Student’s complaint that meets all legal requirements, no later than 5:00 p.m. on October 3, 2017.
DATE: September 29, 2017
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings