California OAH special education order · August 23, 2019
Order Determining Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2019080294 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it proposed no resolutions, only a request to be named prevailing party, while rejecting Ventura's argument that it was not a responsible agency.
Summary
Rio School District and Ventura County Office of Education each filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's due process complaint. OAH found the two issues and supporting facts adequate, including the facts against Ventura. Ventura argued it was only a service provider, but Student alleged she attended a Ventura-operated school and that Ventura failed to supervise her and keep her safe, and OAH said that dispute belongs in a motion to dismiss. The complaint was still insufficient because its only request was that OAH declare Student the prevailing party, which is not a resolution, so Student was given 14 days to amend.
Why it matters
A due process complaint must ask for real remedies such as services, placement, or reimbursement. Asking only to be named the prevailing party will get the complaint rejected. A county office's claim that it is merely a service provider will not defeat a complaint at the sufficiency stage.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
- 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,
v.
RIO SCHOOL DISTRICT AND VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019080294
ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT INSUFFICIENT
On August 8, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Rio School District and Ventura County Office of Education. On August 23, 2019, Ventura filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint as did Rio.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency.
(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: (1) describes the problem relating to the proposed change regarding the Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing the Student a free appropriate public education; (2) includes facts about the problem; and (3) includes a proposed resolution 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 regarding the issues are sufficient.
Student’s complaint identifies two issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit both Rio and Ventura to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Ventura argues that the complaint is insufficient as to it because Ventura is not the local education agency responsible for providing Student with a FAPE. Ventura argues it is only a service provider. Ventura’s argument is not persuasive. Student alleges she attended a school operated by Ventura from June 2017 through March
2018. Student further alleges multiple facts as to Ventura and its alleged failure to
supervise Student and create a safe learning environment. Finally, since a Notice of Insufficiency presumes the facts alleged in the complaint to be true, and Student alleges that Ventura is a responsible public agency, the appropriate means to resolve Ventura’s contention is through a motion to dismiss.
However, Student’s complaint is insufficient as she failed to include any resolutions. 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).)
All Student lists in her conclusion is that OAH deem her the prevailing party on all issue.
Prevailing party status is not a resolution.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
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, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
DATED: August 23, 2019 Linda Johnson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings