California OAH special education order · October 21, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019100208 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Issues 1 and 2 of Student's complaint sufficient but Issue 3 insufficient, because Student did not say which of three IEPs Norwalk-La Mirada allegedly failed to implement.
Summary
Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. OAH found Issues 1 and 2 gave enough facts to put the District on notice. Issue 3, a failure-to-implement claim, was insufficient because the complaint named IEPs from March 2016, December 2017, and February 2019 without saying which one was not implemented. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint, or the hearing would proceed on Issues 1 and 2 only.
Why it matters
A failure-to-implement claim should name the specific IEP, and ideally the specific accommodations or services, that the district did not provide. If the complaint lists several IEPs and does not say which one is at issue, the claim may be found insufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 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.
NORWALK-LA MIRADA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019100208
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On October 3, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District. On October 11, 2019, Norwalk-La Mirada Unified School District 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 three claims in the complaint, two of which are sufficient and one which is insufficient. The issues are discussed below.
Issues 1 and 2 are sufficiently pled to put Norwalk-La Mirada on notice as to the basis of Student’s claims. These issues provided a specific complaint and facts sufficient to put Norwalk-La Mirada on notice of the basis of the complaint to allow Norwalk-La Mirada to participate in the resolution period, mediation, and prepare for due process.
With regard to Issue 3, Student alleges Norwalk-La Mirada denied Student a FAPE by its failure to implement Student’s IEP accommodations. In Student’s statement of facts, Student identifies multiple IEPs by the following dates: March 2, 2016, December 2017, and February 22, 2019. Based on the information provided, it is unclear which IEP Student alleges Norwalk-La Mirada failed to implement. This is insufficient to put Norwalk-La Mirada on notice of the basis for Student’s complaint.
ORDER
1. Issues 1 and 2 of Student’s complaint are sufficient under title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issue 3 of Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(D).
3. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
4. 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. The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
5. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed
only on Issues 1 and 2 in Student’s complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 21, 2019 Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings