California OAH special education order · November 6, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018090646 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Tehachapi's demand for an explicit list of issues because the complaint gave the district enough notice of Student's claims.
Summary
Tehachapi filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's first amended complaint. It argued that the complaint's "Claims for Relief" section was not a reliable statement of issues, pointing to a past case where a different student denied that a similar list was complete. Tehachapi asked OAH to order Student to state an explicit list of issues. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough related facts for Tehachapi to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, and it confirmed all dates.
Why it matters
Due process complaints are read liberally and only need to put the district on notice of the claims. A district's worry based on a different case is not a reason to force a student to restate the issues in a particular format.
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)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
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. 2018090646 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
TEHACHAPI UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On September 17, 2018, Parent on Behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Tehachapi Unified School District as respondent. On October 29, 2018, the office of Administrative Hearings issued an order granting Student’s request to file an amended complaint. On November 5, 2018, Tehachapi Unified School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s first amended complaint on the grounds that it did not clearly set forth a statement of issues.
Tehachapi argues that the “Claims for Relief” section in Student’s complaint is not a reliable statement of issues. This assertion is based on a prior experience by Tehachapi in which a student had denied that their statement of claims was a complete list of claims at the time of the Prehearing Conference. Tehachapi therefore, seeks an order requiring Student to explicitly state a list of issues.
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).)
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).
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.)
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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the Tehachapi on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate related facts about the problem to permit Tehachapi to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. The pleading standard applicable to a request for due process hearing is not as strict as that applicable in other judicial forums. In a request for due process hearing related to a special education case, so long as Tehachapi has received information putting it on notice of Student’s claims, the complaint is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
DATE: November 6, 2018
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings