California OAH special education order · October 26, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017100395 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because its two issues, on assessment and IEP design, gave District enough facts to respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised two issues: that District failed to assess Student in all areas of suspected disability, and that it failed to design and implement an IEP reasonably calculated to let him make appropriate progress, both from October 2015 to the present. The ALJ found that the complaint's facts about IEP goals, April 2016 academic testing, the transition to middle school, and an April 2017 IEP put District on notice of the issues. The complaint was found sufficient, and all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A complaint that clearly states the issues, gives a time frame, and lists supporting facts such as specific IEPs and testing dates will usually survive a district's insufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 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. 2017100395 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TORRANCE UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 9, 2017, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Torrance Unified School District. On October 24, 2017, District timely 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).
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 identifies two issues. Issue one alleges that District denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to assess him in all areas of suspected disability, which are identified, from October 2015 to the present. Issue two alleges that District denied Student a FAPE by failing to design and implement an individualized education program that was reasonably calculated to enable Student to make appropriate progress in light of his circumstances, from October 2015 to the present. The complaint alleges that, since the 2011-2012 school year, District has failed to formulate or implement a comprehensive and successful IEP. Specifically, Student alleges that District failed to support Student’s academic and behavior needs. Additional facts allege problems with IEP goals from the 2015-2016 school year; academic testing in April 2016; his transition to middle school in April 2016; and an April 2017 IEP.
Consequently, the facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put District on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student has alleged issues and adequate related facts about those issues to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s complaint 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: October 26, 2017
PAUL H. KAMOROFF
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings