California OAH special education order · September 12, 2018
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2018080910 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because San Jose filed its notice of insufficiency on September 10, 2018, after the 15-day deadline that ended September 6, 2018.
Summary
San Jose Unified School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Student had served the complaint on San Jose, with a courtesy copy to its counsel, on August 22, 2018, so the notice was due by September 6, 2018. San Jose did not file and serve its notice until September 10, 2018. Because the challenge was late, OAH deemed the complaint sufficient without reviewing its contents and confirmed all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint, or the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient. Parents should keep a proof of service showing when the district was served, because that date starts the clock.
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)
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. 2018080910 v. ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On August 22, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming San Jose Unified School District. On September 10, 2018, San Jose 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).
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 was filed on August 22, 2018. Although San Jose does not indicate in its NOI when it received Student’s complaint, Student included a proof of service in her complaint stating she served the complaint on San Jose on August 22, 2018. Student also served a courtesy copy of the complaint on San Jose’s counsel on August 22, 2018.
Therefore, San Jose’s NOI was due on September 6, 2018. San Jose’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on September 10, 2018, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. District’s NOI was not filed within the statutorily required timeline.
Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
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: September 12, 2018
LINDA JOHNSON
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings