California OAH special education order · December 17, 2018
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2018120015 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's child-find complaint sufficient, rejecting Capistrano's statute-of-limitations challenge because whether older claims fall outside the two-year limit is a fact question for hearing.
Summary
Capistrano filed a Notice of Insufficiency, arguing that Student's single issue (failure to identify Student as a child with disabilities and provide special education for the 2016-2017 through 2018-2019 school years) reached beyond the two-year statute of limitations without facts supporting an exception. OAH held the complaint gave Capistrano enough notice of the issue and related facts to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. Whether Student can recover for claims outside the two-year period is a fact question to be decided at hearing, not on a sufficiency challenge. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency is not the right tool to knock out older claims on statute-of-limitations grounds. OAH treats timeliness and exceptions as matters of proof at hearing, so parents can plead claims reaching back past two years without detailing exception facts up front.
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
- 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. 2018120015 v. ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF
SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL COMPLAINT
DISTRICT.
On November 30, 2018, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request 1 (complaint)
with the Office of Administrative Hearings naming Capistrano Unified School District. On December 14, 2018, Capistrano filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Student’s complaint claiming that Student’s alleged issue, in part, falls outside the two year statute of limitations, yet, fails to state sufficient facts to support an exception to the two year statute of limitations.
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.
§ 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 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).
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 states one issue: Did Capistrano deny Student a free appropriate public education by failing to identify him as a child with disabilities and provide him with special education and related services for the 2016-2017, 2017-2018 school years, including extended school years; and the 2018-2019 school year? The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient to put Capistrano on notice of the issue forming the basis of the complaint. Student’s complaint identifies the issue and states adequate related facts about the problem to permit Capistrano to respond to the complaint and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Whether Student is entitled to relief for claims outside the two year statute of limitations is a question of fact to be resolved according to proof at hearing.
Therefore, Student’s stated issue 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: December 17, 2018
RITA DEFILIPPIS
Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings