California OAH special education order · February 6, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018010104 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient even though it attached a state Uniform Complaint Procedure filing, and rejected Palm Springs' argument that the California Department of Education's prior compliance finding barred the case.
Summary
Palm Springs filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's complaint was vague. Student had filled in only the identifying information on OAH's form and attached a complaint previously filed with the California Department of Education. Palm Springs also argued that the Department's earlier finding that the district was compliant barred the case under collateral estoppel and res judicata. OAH found the attached narrative gave fair notice of two claims, failure to implement the IEP and failure to timely hold IEP meetings, and treated the preclusion argument as an improper summary judgment request, explaining that the uniform complaint process is separate from due process.
Why it matters
A parent can state a due process complaint by attaching an earlier state compliance complaint, as long as the facts show what went wrong. A Department of Education finding in the district's favor does not block a later due process hearing on the same issues.
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)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 4600 et seq.
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.152(c)
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. 2018010104 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT, and RIVERSIDE COUNTY
SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN
AREA.
On January 2, 2018, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Palm Springs Unified School District and Riverside County Special Education Local Plan Area. On February 5, 2018, Palm Springs 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).
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, 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.
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).
§ 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
Palm Springs claims that it did not receive Student’s complaint until “on or about January 23, 2018,” although Student signed a certificate of service filed with the complaint on January 2, 2018, certifying that Palm Springs’s Special Education Department was served with the complaint via email. Based on this information, it is uncertain as to whether Palm Spring’s notice of insufficiency was timely filed. However, for purposes of this NOI as discussed below, an independent review of the complaint results in a determination that the complaint is sufficiently pled, regardless of whether or not the notice was timely filed.
Palm Springs first argues that the complaint is insufficient because it is vague. It contends the complaint does not contain specific issues for hearing. Student completed the OAH complaint form only in respect to the basic identifying information on the first and second page of the form, and then Student attached a complaint it filed with the California Department of Education, pursuant to the Uniform Complaint Procedure. (5 Cal. Code Regs.
§4600 et seq.) That complaint is a Department of Education form completed by Student, as well as a seven page typed narrative. Two sections on the form have been highlighted on the page titled “Helpful Hints When Requesting Direct State Intervention.” Student has highlighted a section concerning failure to implement a student’s individualized education program, and a second section concerning failure to hold an IEP team meeting within required timelines. The seven page typed narrative then recites facts that, if found true, would support these contentions. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Palm Springs on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint, i.e., that Palm Springs failed to implement Student’s IEP during the time period at issue, and it failed to timely convene one or more IEP team meetings. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Palm Springs to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficiently pled.
Palm Springs also argues that Student’s complaint should be barred pursuant to the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, issue preclusion, and claim preclusion. This is because, it claims, the Department of Education conducted and completed an investigation of the complaint filed by Student in 2017, and found Palm Springs compliant with special education law. In essence, Palm Springs is making a motion for summary judgment asking OAH to dismiss the complaint on these grounds. However, there is no summary judgment process pursuant to the IDEA before a due process hearing has been conducted. In addition, the uniform complaint procedure at title 5, California Code of Regulations, section 4600 et seq. is a distinctly different dispute resolution process than the special education due process hearing procedure pursuant to title 5, California Code of Regulations section 3080, et seq.
An OAH decision cannot be appealed via the uniform complaint procedure, nor can the Department of Education investigate a claim that is currently the subject of a due process complaint filed with OAH. (300.152 C.C.R., subd. (c).) Therefore, Palm Springs has failed to establish that the complaint is insufficiently pled based on the doctrines of collateral estoppel, res judicata, issue preclusion, and claim preclusion.
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. The prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
DATE: February 6, 2018
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings