California OAH special education order · September 27, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017090344 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's five-issue complaint sufficient and kept all dates, rejecting Monrovia's bid to dismiss because how far back Student can seek remedies is a factual question for hearing.
Summary
Monrovia filed a Notice of Insufficiency and asked OAH to dismiss Student's complaint and vacate the hearing dates. It argued that Student alleged violations going back to a May 4, 2015 IEP without pleading facts that would extend (toll) the statute of limitations. The ALJ found the complaint gave Monrovia enough notice of the issues and facts to respond. She held that only two of the five issues involved the May 2015 IEP, that Monrovia's reading of the issues was not reasonable, and that whether Student can seek remedies back to May 4, 2015 is a question of fact to decide at hearing. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge cannot be used to get a statute-of-limitations ruling early. OAH treats whether older claims are timely, or whether an exception extends the deadline, as a factual question for hearing, so parents need not plead tolling facts to survive a sufficiency notice.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2017090344 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 11, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request]1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Monrovia Unified School District. On September, 26, 2017, Monrovia filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s ’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.)
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, 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).
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 sufficient to put the Monrovia on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Monrovia to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Monrovia’s Notice of Insufficiency and requests to dismiss Student’s complaint and vacate the hearing dates are based on the claim that Student alleges violations dating back to May 4, 2015, and fails to allege facts that would support a tolling of the statute of limitations.
Student states five issues in her complaint. The first two issues allege violations regarding Student’s May 4, 2015, IEP as amended on March 25, 2016. The remaining issues do not refer to the May 4, 2015, IEP. In light of the language of Student’s issues, Monrovia’s interpretation of them is not reasonable. Furthermore, the issue of whether Student can seek remedies back to May 4, 2015, is a question of fact to be determined at hearing.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the five claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: September 27, 2017
RITA DEFILIPPIS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings