California OAH special education order · October 9, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019090124, 2019100015 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found San Dieguito's complaint sufficient. The complaint alleged Parents' consolidated case was frivolous and sought attorney's fees, and it named a timeline, a specific IEP, the facts, and a proposed resolution.
Summary
San Dieguito filed a due process complaint against Student alleging that Parents and their attorney had filed a frivolous, unreasonable, or improper-purpose complaint in the consolidated case. Student filed a Notice of Insufficiency. Student argued that such serious frivolity allegations required more factual detail than the usual liberal IDEA pleading standard. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it identified a discrete timeline, a specific IEP, alleged facts (Parents' claimed bad-faith efforts to block implementation and pursuit of an inadequate program), and a proposed resolution seeking attorney's fees.
Why it matters
OAH applied the same liberal pleading standard to a district complaint accusing parents and their attorney of frivolous litigation, and refused to demand extra detail. Families facing these fee-related claims should expect to defend them on the merits rather than defeat them at the pleading stage.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(III) & (IV)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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 CONSOLIDATED MATTERS OF:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019090124
and
SAN DIEGUITO UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019100015
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On September 30, 2019, San Dieguito Union High School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Student. On October 8, 2019, Student 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
The facts alleged in San Dieguito’s complaint are sufficient. San Dieguito’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Student to respond. Student’s motion takes specific umbrage of San Dieguito’s allegations that “Parents and their attorney’s complaint in the consolidated action is frivolous, unreasonable, without foundation, and/or filed for an improper purpose.” Student argues that the seriousness of San Dieguito’s allegations of frivolity demand a higher degree of factual specificity than the liberal pleading standard allowed under the IDEA in order to prepare an adequate defense. San Dieguito’s complaint identified a discrete timeline and specific IEP, facts about the problem; specifically, that Parents engaged in bad faith efforts to block implementation and pursued an inadequate program, and a proposed resolution to seek recovery of attorney’s fees. This notice is sufficient to inform Student of the basis of San Dieguito’s complaint.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 9, 2019 Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings