California OAH special education order · November 7, 2018
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2018101223 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Garvey's claim that references to "the IEP meeting" were unclear, because the complaint gave enough facts and proposed resolutions to put Garvey on notice.
Summary
Garvey School District filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Student's complaint was unclear in its references to "the IEP meeting." The heading of Garvey's motion also said Student's proposed resolutions were insufficient, but the motion never explained that argument. OAH held that the relaxed pleading standard for due process complaints was met: the complaint identified the issues and related facts well enough for Garvey to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, and it included adequate proposed resolutions. All dates in the October 29, 2018 scheduling order stayed in place.
Why it matters
Due process complaints are read liberally, so a district's complaint that references are unclear will not defeat a complaint that gives the district fair notice of the issues. A district that raises an insufficiency argument without explaining it gains little.
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
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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. 2018101223 v. ORDER DETERMINING DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
GARVEY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
On October 26, 2018, Parent on Behalf of Student (Student) filed a Due Process Hearing Request (complaint) with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Garvey School District as respondent. On November 6, 2018, Garvey filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint, asserting that the complaint failed to meet the notification requirements of state and federal law in that references to “the IEP meeting” were not adequately clear. While the heading to section IV of Garvey’s motion also states that Student’s resolutions are insufficiently pled, Garvey failed to actually explain or support this argument in the body of the motion.
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).
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.)
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
The pleading standard applicable to due process hearing requests is not as strict as that in other judicial forums. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put the Garvey 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 Garvey to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
While Garvey did not complete its analysis of Student’s proposed resolutions, a review of the request for due process reveals that adequately expressed proposed resolutions are included. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).)
Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available at the time the request for due process was filed. Garvey is on notice of Student’s claims and proposals for resolution of those claims; therefore, the complaint is 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 dates shall proceed as stated in the October 29, 2018 scheduling order.
DATE: November 7, 2018
PENELOPE S. PAHL
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings