California OAH special education order · June 7, 2018
Order Determining Complaint Insufficient As Pled
OAH Case No. 2018051158 · ALJ Darrell Lepkowsky
OAH found Student's entire 16-issue complaint against Long Beach Unified insufficient because every issue stated bare conclusions with no supporting facts, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
Long Beach Unified School District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which raised 16 issues. The ALJ found every issue insufficient, even under the liberal pleading standard, because none included any facts. For example, the child find claim gave no description of Student's suspected disability or the warning signs, and the behavior claim did not describe the behaviors or social skill delays. Student was allowed to file an amended complaint within 14 days, District's separate statute-of-limitations motion to dismiss was declared moot, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under OAH's forgiving pleading standard, a complaint that only lists legal claims without facts can be thrown out. Parents should describe the disability, the specific behaviors or problems, when they happened, and what the district knew.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502
- 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)
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. 2018051158 v. ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT AS PLED
LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT .
On May 25, 2018, Parents on behalf of Student filed a request for due process hearing (complaint)1 with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Long Beach Unified School District. On June 4, 2018, District timely 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).
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 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).
2 The same date, District also filed a motion to dismiss portions of Student’s complaint that exceed the two-year statute of limitations. As this order finds Student’s complaint to be insufficient, District’s motion to dismiss is moot, and District may file a subsequent motion to dismiss if Student files an amended complaint.
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 contains 16 issues or problems. Each issue is significantly insufficient as each fails to meet even the liberal pleading standard permitted under the above-cited authority. The complaint contains no factual contentions of any kind. Rather, each problem states an issue without providing any supported facts. For example, problem one states that prior to February 3, 2016, District failed to discharge its child find obligations.
That is the extent of the information regarding this problem. There is no description of what type of disability Student might have, no description of what indications District had that Student might have a disability, and no details as to when Student began demonstrating signs of the disability. Another example is problem 14, in which Student contends that she demonstrated maladaptive behaviors and delayed social skills but was not offered appropriate behavior services. Student fails to describe what type of behaviors she demonstrated, in what context the behaviors arose, for how long she demonstrated the behaviors, or what type of delayed social skills she manifested.
Each of the 16 problems suffers from the same lack of any supporting facts at all supporting the bald assertions stated in each problem. For these reasons, Student’s entire complaint is insufficient as pled.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).3
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
DATE: June 7, 2018
DARRELL LEPKOWSKY
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 3 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.