California OAH special education order · December 6, 2018
Order Following Prehearing Conference Confirming Placement as an Issue at Hearing
OAH Case No. 2018080080 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH kept Student's placement claim in the hearing because the amended complaint, though not artfully worded, gave San Marcos notice that Parents disputed its moderate to severe placement offer.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Marcos Unified School District: San Marcos Unified prevails on all claims; move of autistic seven-year-old to moderate/severe special day class upheld. (2019)
Summary
At the prehearing conference, the ALJ ordered both sides to brief whether the hearing should include an issue about placement. The issue was whether San Marcos denied Student a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment at the June 13, 2018 IEP team meeting. The ALJ had not been able to see Student's first amended complaint at the conference because OAH misfiled it. After reviewing that complaint and both briefs, OAH ruled the placement issue will be heard. Paragraphs 72-84 of the complaint put San Marcos on notice that Parents disagreed with its moderate to severe placement offer, and pleading requirements are read liberally.
Why it matters
OAH reads due process complaints liberally. A claim can stay in the case if the complaint's factual allegations give the district fair notice of the dispute, even if the claim is not neatly stated as a separate issue.
Key authority cited
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, p. 34
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sammons v. Polk County School Bd. (M.D. Fla. 2005) 2005 WL 2850076
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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. 2018080080 v. ORDER FOLLOWING PREHEARING
CONFERENCE CONFIRMING
SAN MARCOS UNIFIED SCHOOL PLACEMENT AS AN ISSUE AT
DISTRICT. HEARING
At the December 3, 2018 prehearing conference, Administrative Law Judge Sabrina Kong ordered the parties to file briefing on whether the following issue should be a part of the hearing:1 “2.c. Did San Marcos deny Student a FAPE by failing to offer appropriate placement in the least restrictive environment at the June 13, 2018 IEP team meeting?”
APPLICABLE LAW
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.].)
After reviewing the first amended complaint, and reviewing both the Student’s and San Marco’s December 4, 2018 briefings, the placement issue shall be part of the hearing.
Student raised the allegations of inappropriate placement in paragraphs 72-84 of the first amended complaint. San Marcos had notice that Parents disagreed with San Marcos’ offer of a moderate to severe placement. While the issue of inappropriate placement could have been more artfully stated, Student did articulate that he disputed the moderate to severe placement Student’s first amended complaint was not available to the ALJ at the PHC as it had been misfiled by OAH.
offered by San Marcos in the first amended complaint. Therefore, inappropriate placement as set forth in the December 4, 2018 Order Following Prehearing Conference and above, as 2.c., will be an issue at hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: December 6, 2018
SABRINA KONG
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings