California OAH special education order · October 4, 2018
Order Finding Complaint Sufficiently Pleaded
OAH Case No. 2018080958 · ALJ Alexa J. Hohensee
OAH denied Los Angeles's motion to dismiss, treated as an untimely sufficiency challenge, because the district raised it after the 15-day deadline, so Student's complaint was deemed sufficient as a matter of law.
Summary
Los Angeles moved to dismiss Student's complaint, arguing that it did not allege a disability or a denial of FAPE and that it sought only monetary damages and staff firings, which the IDEA does not provide. OAH treated the motion as a notice of insufficiency because it attacked the adequacy of the pleadings. The district filed it more than 15 days after receiving the complaint and gave no explanation for the delay, so the complaint was deemed sufficient by law. OAH also noted that a failure to enroll a student with disabilities can deny FAPE, and that ALJs have broad equitable power to fashion remedies.
Why it matters
A district that misses the 15-day window to challenge a complaint's sufficiency loses that challenge, even if it labels the filing a motion to dismiss. Parents who ask for relief the IDEA does not provide, such as money damages or staff firings, can still go forward, because ALJs have broad equitable power to award other remedies.
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)
- School Committee of Burlington v. Dept. of Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359
- Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230
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. 2018080958 v. ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENTLY PLEADED
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL
DISTRICT.
On August 23, 2018, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Los Angeles Unified School District.
On October 2, 2018, Los Angeles filed a motion to dismiss, asserting that Student failed to allege that he is disabled or denied a free appropriate public education, and so cannot state a claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq.). Los Angeles also argues that Student seeks monetary damages, and does not allege relief available under the IDEA. Los Angeles’ motion attacks the sufficiency of Student’s pleadings, and so is treated as a notice of insufficiency.
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 OAH 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 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).
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 complaint alleges that Los Angeles acted inappropriately in failing to enroll Student or to respond to Parent’s complaints. These actions would support a claim of denial of FAPE with additional allegations explaining Student’s disability(ies), educational needs and how they were adversely impacted by Los Angeles’ actions. Failure to allow a student with disabilities to attend school effectively denies that student a FAPE.
Student’s complaint seeks to have certain staff fired, and requests monetary damages.
Although such relief is not available under the IDEA, federal and state courts have broad equitable powers to remedy the failure of a school district to provide a FAPE to a disabled child. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(1)(C)(iii); Ed. Code, § 56505, subd. (g); see School Committee of the Town of Burlington, Massachusetts v. Dept. of Education (1985) 471 U.S. 359, 369.)
This broad equitable authority extends to an ALJ who hears and decides a special education administrative due process matter. (Forest Grove School Dist. v. T.A. (2009) 557 U.S. 230, 244, n. 11.)
Los Angeles failed to raise the sufficiency of Student’s pleading within 15 days of receiving Student’s complaint, and therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficiently pleaded as a matter of law. Los Angeles failed to provide an explanation of why it did not file a timely NOI, or why Student’s complaint should not be deemed sufficient.
Accordingly, Los Angeles’ motion is denied as untimely.
ORDER
1. The complaint is also deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code
section 1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
DATE: October 4, 2018
ALEXA J. HOHENSEE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings