California OAH special education order · August 16, 2019
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2019080365 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Vacaville's argument that two issues failed to say when violations occurred, because the complaint gave enough facts to put the district on notice.
Summary
Vacaville filed a Notice of Insufficiency arguing that Issues one and three of Student's complaint did not identify when the alleged violations occurred. Issue five was the subject of a separate motion to dismiss and was not decided here. The ALJ found that Issues one through four, which described failures 'over the past years' to offer services, supports, assessments, and prior written notice, gave Vacaville enough notice to respond and to take part in a resolution session and mediation. The complaint was found sufficient, and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally, so a complaint that describes a pattern of failures 'over the past years,' along with supporting facts and proposed resolutions, can survive a sufficiency challenge even without exact dates. Timing questions may still come up later, for example under the statute of limitations.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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. 46,540-46541, 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,
v.
VACAVILLE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019080365
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
On August 09, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, referred to as a complaint with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Vacaville Unified School District. On August 15, 2019, Vacaville timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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
Student’s complaint alleges five issues. Issue five is the subject of a separate motion to dismiss by Vacaville. Vacaville contends Issues one and three fail to identify when the alleged violations occurred, rendering those two issues insufficient.
Student asserts he is seventeen years old. His complaint asserts historical facts dating back to his first finding of eligibility for special education when he was three years old. He asserts that “over the past years” Vacaville failed to offer or provide various services, supports, assessments and, in 2019, prior written notice to parents. The complaint identifies three specific proposed resolutions.
Issues one through four are sufficient to put Vacaville on notice of the alleged violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Vacaville to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, 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.
DATED: August 16, 2019 Adrienne L. Krikorian Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings