California OAH special education order · December 12, 2019
Order Denying Student's Request for Legally Sufficient Response from Modesto City Schools
OAH Case No. 2019081052 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH denied Student's request to order Modesto City Schools to file a more detailed, legally compliant response to her amended complaint, because the IDEA gives no process for challenging a response's sufficiency.
This case went to decision
Student v. Modesto City Schools et al.: Modesto City Schools wins dismissal of claims over refused in-home behavior services as barred by two-year statute of limitations. (2020)
Summary
Student asked OAH to find Modesto City Schools' response to her first amended complaint insufficient. She argued it was untimely, gave only generic answers, and did not clearly state affirmative defenses, and she asked OAH to order a compliant response within three days. OAH noted that the IDEA allows a party to challenge the sufficiency of a due process complaint, but provides no procedure to challenge the sufficiency of a district's response. Student also cited no authority treating prior written notice rules as governing the response, so OAH found it had no power to grant the order and denied the motion.
Why it matters
Families should not expect OAH to force a district to rewrite a thin or late response to a due process complaint. The district's lack of detail is better addressed through discovery, prehearing statements, and evidence at hearing.
Key authority cited
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(2)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.503
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(3)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School Dist. (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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.
TURLOCK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND MODESTO CITY
SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019081052
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR LEGALLY SUFFICIENT
RESPONSE FROM MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS
ORDER DENYING STUDENT’S REQUEST FOR A LEGALLY
COMPLIANT RESPONSE FROM MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS
On August 27, 2019, Student filed a due process hearing request with the Office of Administrative Hearings, known as OAH, naming Turlock Unified School District and Modesto City Schools. On September 16, 2019, OAH granted Student’s motion to file a first amended complaint. On October 21, 2019, Modesto filed a response to Student’s first amended complaint.
On December 4, 2019, Student filed a motion for a legally sufficient response to her first amended complaint as to Modesto. Student and Modesto argued the motion at the prehearing conference on December 9, 2019, and it was taken under submission by the undersigned Administrative Law Judge.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
State and federal law require a local education agency to respond to a due process complaint filed on behalf of a child. (Ed. Code, §56502, subd. (d)(2)(A); 20 USC § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508.); M.C. by and through his guardian ad litem M.N. v.
Antelope Valley Union High School District (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199-1200 (MC).) Both the Education Code and title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) require a local educational agency to “send to the parent a response”
to the due process complaint if the school district has not sent prior written notice to the parent regarding the subject matter contained in the parent’s due process complaint. The response to the complaint must be sent to the parent within 10 days of receiving the complaint. Title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)(aa)
through (dd) itemizes what should be contained in the response.
Prior written notice before due process is distinguished under the IDEA by the requirement of a response to the complaint following a request for due process on behalf of a child eligible for special education under section 1415(c)(2). Where a school district has not previously provided the parent with prior written notice, the school district must serve a response to the due process complaint after due process has been initiated.
DISCUSSION
Student does not dispute that Modesto filed a response to the first amended complaint. Instead, she argues that it was required to, within ten days of receiving the first amended complaint, to either send prior written notice in response to the complaint and provide information required under title 34 Code of Federal regulations section 300.503, or respond with the components required by title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I), and it failed to do so in a timely manner.
Additionally, Student contends that Modesto City Schools failed to provide mandatory information regarding Student’s issues, provided generic responses only, and failed to clearly set forth affirmative defenses, thus objecting to the content of the response, and arguing that it did not contain the level of detail required by the IDEA.
Student seeks an order finding that the response is insufficient and ordering Modesto City Schools to provide a legally compliant response within three days of the prehearing conference.
The IDEA provides for a specific process to challenge a due process complaint through a notice of insufficiency. (See, 20 USC § 1415(c)(i)(B)(II).) The IDEA does not provide a process by which to challenge the sufficiency of a response. Student has cited no authority in the IDEA or Education Code that conflates the law applicable to prior written notice under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(3) and a response to a due process complaint under title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I).
In the absence of any authority that empowers OAH to make such orders, Student’s motion is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 12, 2019 Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings