California OAH special education order · September 16, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint; Order Denying Motion to Dismiss as Moot
OAH Case No. 2019090032 · ALJ Rommel P. Cruz
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA because no facts tied the SELPA to the alleged violations, and denied the SELPA's motion to dismiss as moot.
Summary
East San Gabriel Valley SELPA filed a motion to dismiss and, in the alternative, a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint. Student's complaint also named Los Angeles Unified and California Virtual Academies. OAH found all nine claims insufficiently pled against the SELPA because the facts involved only the other two agencies and did not say how the SELPA was involved or responsible. Student was given 14 days to amend, or the SELPA will be dismissed and the case will proceed against the other two agencies; the motion to dismiss was denied as moot.
Why it matters
When a complaint names several agencies, it must allege specific facts showing what each agency did or was responsible for, or that agency can be dropped from the case. OAH also warned that a notice of insufficiency and a motion to dismiss must be filed separately, or OAH will rule only on the insufficiency notice.
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, EAST SAN GABRIEL
VALLEY SPECIAL EDUCATION LOCAL PLAN AREA, AND
CALIFORNIA VIRTUAL ACADEMIES.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019090032
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT; ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
On August 30, 2019, Parents on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, naming Los Angeles Unified School District, East San Gabriel Valley Special Education Local Plan Area, and California Virtual Academies. On September 9, 2019, East San Gabriel Valley SELPA filed a Motion to Dismiss, and in the alternative a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. The Office of Administrative Hearings is referred to as OAH.
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
SUFFICIENCY OF STUDENT’S COMPLAINT
Student’s complaint alleges nine claims, all of which are insufficiently pled against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. The complaint fails to provide sufficient facts describing how East San Gabriel Valley SELPA was responsible for, and committed alleged violations related to, the proposed initiation or change concerning the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of Student, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to him. The factual allegations involve either California Virtual Academies or Los Angeles Unified School District, and do not allege that East San Gabriel Valley SELPA was involved in or responsible for the alleged denial of a free appropriate public education. The complaint fails to provide East San Gabriel Valley SELPA with an awareness and understanding of the claims against it. Accordingly, the complaint is insufficient as to East San Gabriel Valley SELPA.
MOTION TO DISMISS
East San Gabriel Valley SELPA’s motion to be dismissed as a party is moot, and therefore, denied, as each of Student’s claims have been determined insufficiently pled against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. The attorney for East San Gabriel Valley SELPA is put on notice that in the future, a Notice of Insufficiency and Motion to Dismiss are to be filed as separate motions, as otherwise OAH will only rule upon the Notice of Insufficiency.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled against East San Gabriel Valley
SELPA 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). The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
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, East San Gabriel Valley
SELPA will be dismissed as a party to Student’s complaint and the hearing shall proceed against Los Angeles Unified School District and California Virtual Academies only.
5. East San Gabriel Valley SELPA’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 16, 2019 Rommel P. Cruz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings