California OAH special education order · October 15, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018100524 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it gave Berkeley enough notice of the manifestation, placement, transfer, and records issues; Berkeley's residency challenge must be decided at hearing, not through a notice of insufficiency.
Summary
Berkeley filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint. The complaint alleged that Student's conduct was a manifestation of his disability, that his April 12, 2018 IEP placed him at a nonpublic school, and that Berkeley then ended his intra-district transfer even though it knew he lived in Berkeley. It also alleged Berkeley did not provide complete records after a September 28, 2018 request. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified the issues and gave enough facts for Berkeley to respond and take part in resolution and mediation. OAH said Berkeley's question about Student's residency belongs at the due process hearing, and it confirmed all dates; Berkeley's separate motion to dismiss will be decided in another order.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a notice of insufficiency to argue the merits of a case, such as whether Student lives in the district; those disputes go to hearing. A complaint that clearly states the problems and the related facts will usually be found sufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(k)(3)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
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. 2018100524 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
BERKELEY UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On October 08, 2018 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Berkeley Unified School District. On October 11, 2018, Berkeley filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint. Berkeley concurrently filed a motion to dismiss. That motion will be addressed in a separate order.
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).
Title 20 United States Code section 1415(k)(3) permits a party to request an expedited hearing to appeal a decision regarding a disciplinary change of placement, such as placement in an alternative education setting or a manifestation determination regarding student conduct. This section requires an expedited hearing to occur within 20 school days of the date the hearing is requested. There is no provision similar to that in title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(A) for testing the sufficiency of a request for an expedited hearing pursuant to section 1415(k). Indeed, there is insufficient time to complete the NOI process in expedited hearings.
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 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).
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 alleged two issues in his complaint. Issue one alleges Student’s conduct is manifestation of his disability and pursuant to Student’s April 12, 2018 IEP, Student would be placed at non-public school. Student’s complaint alleges Berkeley then terminated Student’s intra-district transfer despite knowing Student resides in Berkeley. Issue two alleges Berkeley failed to provide complete Student records pursuant to his September 28, 2018 records request.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Berkeley on notice of the issues forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and provides adequate related facts about the problem to permit District to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Berkeley raises a question of Student’s residency. The question of Student’s residency is properly decided at a due process hearing and not through a notice of insufficiency.
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: October 15, 2018
TIFFANY GILMARTIN
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings