California OAH special education order · May 21, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018050331 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that fifteen sparsely worded problems with four IEPs still gave Norwalk-La Mirada enough notice to respond and prepare for hearing.
Summary
Norwalk-La Mirada filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint listed six problems with IEPs dated October 21, 2016 and November 17, 2016, and nine problems with IEPs dated October 10, 2017 and November 1, 2017. OAH held that although the problems were sparsely worded, they were legally sufficient because they gave the District enough notice to respond, take part in a resolution session, and mediate. The District had in fact already responded to the complaint when it filed its notice. The issues can be clarified at the June 25, 2018 prehearing conference, and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Pleading standards are applied liberally, so a complaint that briefly lists specific problems tied to specific IEP dates can survive an insufficiency challenge. A district that has already answered the complaint will have a hard time claiming it lacks notice.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Ed. Code § 56502
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. 2018050331 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED COMPLAINT
SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On May 7, 2018, Student filed a due process hearing request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District. On May 17, 2018, Norwalk-La Mirada 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 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).
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Norwalk-La Mirada on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s first issue refers to IEP’s dated October 21, 2016, and November 17, 2016, and then lists six problems with those individualized education programs. While the “problems” are sparsely worded, they are, nonetheless, legally sufficient. The complaint then refers to IEP’s dated October 10, 2017, and November 1, 2017, and relates nine additional “problems.” Again although they are sparsely worded, they are legally sufficient. The issues can be further clarified during the prehearing conference currently calendared for June 25, 2018.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Norwalk-La Mirada to respond to the complaint (which it did contemporaneously when it filed the notice of insufficiency), and participate in a resolution session and, if requested by the parties, mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the fifteen claims 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: May 21, 2018
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings