California OAH special education order · February 8, 2018
Order Finding Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2018010708 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's 15-page complaint sufficient, rejecting District's argument that it lacked detail, because it gave District an awareness and understanding of the issues and proposed specific resolutions.
Summary
District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, arguing the facts were not detailed enough to give notice of the many specific violations alleged. Student opposed. The ALJ found the complaint, with 15 pages of detailed facts, four claims (three under the IDEA with subparts), and five specific proposed resolutions, gave District enough information to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint was found sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A complaint only has to give the district an awareness and understanding of the issues, so a detailed factual complaint with proposed resolutions will usually survive a district's insufficiency challenge.
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 46,540-46541, 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. 2018010708 v. ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On January 19, 2018 Parent on Student’s behalf filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Jose Unified School District. On February 5, 2018, District timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. Student filed an opposition on February 6, 2018.
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.
§ 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.)
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).
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 consists of 15 pages of detailed facts. Student identifies four violations, three of which are raised under the IDEA and contain multiple subparts. The facts as pled support the three IDEA claims. District contends that the facts are not sufficiently detailed to give District notice of numerous specific violations. However, the complaint provides “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint” which is all that is required under the IDEA. Student’s complaint also identifies five specific proposed resolutions along with general requests for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party status.
Student’s complaint sufficiently identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All dates in this matter are confirmed, unless otherwise ordered.
DATE: February 8, 2018
ADRIENNE L. KRIKORIAN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings