California OAH special education order · October 1, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018090052 · ALJ Rebecca Freie
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to iLEAD Charter School because it alleged no acts or omissions by iLEAD, and gave Student 14 days to amend or iLEAD will be dismissed.
Summary
iLEAD Charter School challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, which also named Los Angeles Unified School District and Charter High School of the Arts. OAH found iLEAD's challenge timely because Student's attorney mailed the complaint to an address iLEAD had vacated, so iLEAD did not receive it until September 11, 2018. The complaint said only that Student attended iLEAD for part of two school years and did not describe any problem or facts about how iLEAD denied a FAPE, so it was insufficient as to iLEAD. Student may amend within 14 days, or iLEAD will be dismissed; no finding was made about the other named parties.
Why it matters
Each district or charter named in a complaint needs its own specific facts showing what that school did or failed to do; just listing enrollment is not enough. Serving a complaint at an outdated address can also extend the deadline for the other side to challenge it.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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. 2018090052 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT, CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL
OF THE ARTS, and iLEAD CHARTER
SCHOOL.
On August 31, 2018, Student filed a due process hearing request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Los Angeles Unified School District, Charter High School of the Arts, and iLEAD Charter School. On September 24, 2018, iLEAD Charter School 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.
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).
§ 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 was filed on August 31, 2018. However, iLEAD has filed a declaration by the Director of Student Support for iLEAD Charter Schools explaining that iLEAD did not receive the complaint until September 11, 2018, because Student’s attorney mailed the complaint to the address of a location in Van Nuys that was vacated by iLEAD in May 2018. Therefore the complaint had to be forwarded to another location, and thus iLEAD's notice of insufficiency is timely filed.
In his complaint Student states that he attended iLEAD during the 2016-2017 school year, and the first semester of the 2017-2018 school year. However, Student does not allege any acts of omissions by iLEAD that resulted in him being denied a FAPE, or violated his procedural rights. The complaint does not contain the required notice of a description of the problem, and the facts relating to the problem. The complaint is devoid of any information that would allow iLEAD to prepare for a resolution session, mediation, or due process hearing. Accordingly, Student’s complaint is insufficiently plead as to iLEAD. 2 2 No finding is made as to the sufficiency of the complaint as it pertains to the other named parties.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D), as to iLEAD.
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, iLEAD shall be dismissed
as a party.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated as to iLEAD only.
DATE: October 1, 2018
REBECCA FREIE
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings 3 The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.