California OAH special education order · September 18, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017090420 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's issue three sufficient even though it did not list specific IEP dates, because it gave District enough notice about its 2016-2017 offer to respond and participate in resolution and mediation.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging issue three of Student's complaint. That issue alleged District denied Student a free appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2016-2017 school year through an inappropriate annual IEP. District argued the issue did not identify the dates of the disputed IEPs. OAH, construing pleading requirements liberally, found the allegations about District's 2016-2017 offer of placement, services, goals, and behavior supports gave District enough notice, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to list exact IEP meeting dates to be sufficient if it clearly identifies the school year and the problems with the district's offer. This matters most when a district has not produced the IEP records the family requested.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 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 Matter of:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT, OAH Case No. 2017090420 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 11, 2017, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Murrieta Valley Unified School District. On September 16, 2017, District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to issue three in 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.)
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 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).
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 six issues against District. District contends that issue three is insufficiently pled. Student’s issue three asserts that “District denied Student a FAPE for the 2016-2017 school year by failing to offer and provide him with a procedurally correct and substantively appropriate annual IEP. The District failed to provide Student with a complete copy of his annual IEP pursuant to the records request of October of 2016.
Student reserves the right to amend this Complaint upon receipt of this document. However, Student contends that District failed to offer [Student] an appropriate placement, services, goals, and behavior supports for the 2016-2017 school year.” District asserts that the issue is insufficient because it does not denote the dates of the individualized education programs that are being disputed by Student.
However, the facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Specifically, Student’s complaint has identified adequate problems relating to District’s offer for the 2016-2017 school year to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of issue three is sufficient.
ORDER
1. Issue three of 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 mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: September 18, 2017
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings