California OAH special education order · November 22, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019110228 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Despite typos and a formatting error placing 2018-2019 allegations under Issue Three, the complaint gave the County Office of Education enough notice of the issues and facts.
Summary
Santa Clara County Office of Education challenged the sufficiency of Issue Two of Student's complaint, which alleged a denial of a free appropriate public education for the 2018-2019 school year. OAH found the nineteen-page complaint sufficient. Although some 2018-2019 allegations, such as a placement change without an IEP meeting or prior written notice and a gap in placement, appeared under Issue Three because of an apparent formatting error, the complaint still gave respondents enough notice to respond and to take part in a resolution session and mediation. Student's proposed resolution of compensatory education was also well defined, and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally, so typos and formatting mistakes will not defeat a complaint if the agency can understand the issues and facts. Agencies cannot use sufficiency challenges to pick apart imperfect drafting.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- 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 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.
SANTA CLARA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, SANTA CLARA
COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, AND SANTA CLARA
COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110228
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On November 06, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Santa Clara Unified School District, Santa Clara County Office of Education, and Santa Clara County Probation Department. On November 21, 2019, Santa Clara County Office of Education filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to Issue Two of Student’s 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 Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Santa Clara County Office of Education to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student’s Issue Two relates to an alleged denial of a free appropriate public education for the 2018-2019 school year by Santa Clara Unified School District and Santa Clara County Office of Education. Issue Three relates to the 2019-2020 school year. In what appears to be a formatting error, under Issue Three Student raises specific issues relating to Santa Clara County Office of Education for the 2018-2019 school year, including “12/7/2018 SCCOE changed placement to Pine Hill/Second Start ED program without holding an IEP, providing notice, or issuing a PWN” and “Failure to offer or provide any educational placement between 2/22/2019-3/25/2019 (SOCCOE)”.
Student’s nineteen-page complaint includes typos and formatting errors, but provides the respondents with sufficient notice as to the facts and issues underlying the complaint.
Student’s proposed resolution is that Santa Clara County Office of Education provide Student with compensatory education. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolutions stated in Student’s complaint are well-defined requests that meet the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
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: November 22, 2019 Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings