California OAH special education order · May 29, 2018
Order Denying District's Notice of Insufficiency
OAH Case No. 2018050081 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting District's challenge, because it identified the 2017-2018 school year, alleged facts showing the reading program and FAPE offer were inappropriate, and proposed resolutions.
Summary
District filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's due process complaint did not identify the specific IEP or explain how the present levels of performance and goals failed to match Student's needs. Student did not file an opposition. OAH denied the challenge. It found the complaint gave enough notice of the issue, whether District denied Student a FAPE in 2017-2018 by offering a reading program that did not meet Student's needs, for District to respond and take part in resolution, mediation, and hearing. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint does not have to name every specific IEP or break down each goal. Pleadings are read liberally, and naming the school year, the program at issue, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions can be enough to survive a sufficiency 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)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. ex rel. Burke v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 Fed.Reg. 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. 2018050081 v. ORDER DENYING DISTRICT’S
NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY
MONROVIA UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On May 2, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Monrovia Unified School District. On May 16, 2018, District filed a notice of insufficiency as to Student’s case. District contends that Student failed to set forth the specific individualized education program and how the present levels of performance and goals were misaligned with Student’s needs. Student did not file an opposition.
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 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 case involves whether District denied Student a free appropriate public education for the 2017-2018 school year, and specifically if the reading program met Student’s needs. Student set forth the school year in question, facts detailing why District’s FAPE offer was inappropriate, and proposed resolutions. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint were sufficient to put District on notice of the issues and for District to respond to the complaint, and participate in resolution, mediation, and hearing. Therefore, District’s notice of insufficienty is denied.
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: May 29, 2018
SABRINA KONG
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings