California OAH special education order · December 1, 2017
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2017110711 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Alisal filed its Notice of Insufficiency after business hours on November 28, making it deemed filed November 29, more than 15 days after service.
Summary
Alisal Union School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which had been served on November 13, 2017. Alisal filed its notice at 5:04 p.m. on November 28, so it was deemed filed on November 29, outside the 15-day deadline. Because the challenge was untimely, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its content and confirmed all scheduled dates. A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction that Alisal combined with the notice will be decided in a separate order, and OAH asked Alisal's counsel to file such motions separately in the future.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint, and a filing made after 5 p.m. counts as filed the next day. A late challenge means the complaint is automatically sufficient, no matter what it says.
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
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. 2017110711 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
ALISAL UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT COMPLAINT
AND MONTEREY COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION.
On November 13, 2017, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Alisal Union School District and Monterey County Office of Education. On November 29, 2017, Alisal filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint.2
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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies the Office of Administrative Hearings and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements.
(20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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, 1A 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).
2Alisal also filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds OAH does not have jurisdiction over the issue Student alleged. That motion will be addressed in a separate order. Alisal’s counsel is requested in the future to file separate Notice of Insufficiency Motions and Motions to Dismiss and not as a combined motion.
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 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 was filed on November 13, 2017. Alisal does not indicate when it received Student’s complaint. However, Student included a proof of service with the complaint stating it served Alisal on November 13, 2017. Alisal’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on November 28, 2017, at 5:04 p.m. Alisal’s NOI is deemed filed on November 29, 2017, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint.
Alisal’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline. Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
ORDER
1. 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: December 1, 2017
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings