California OAH special education order · November 19, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019110266 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient as to Aspire Public Schools because it stated no issues or proposed resolutions against the charter, while the case proceeds against Los Angeles.
Summary
Aspire Public Schools filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint raised three denial-of-FAPE issues against Los Angeles but said only that Student had been placed in a general education class at Aspire Slauson Academy Charter, with no issues or proposed resolutions aimed at Aspire. OAH ruled the complaint insufficient as to Aspire and gave Student 14 days to amend, or the claims against Aspire will be dismissed. All dates were vacated as to Aspire, and the case continues as scheduled against Los Angeles.
Why it matters
Naming a charter or other agency in a complaint is not enough. Each named agency must be tied to specific issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, or that agency can be dropped from the case.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND ASPIRE
PUBLIC SCHOOLS.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110266
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On November 7, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Los Angeles Unified School District and Aspire Public Schools. Los Angeles Unified School District will be referred to as Los Angeles. Aspire Public Schools will be referred to as Aspire. On November 14, 2019, Aspire 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 issues against Los Angeles for a denial of a free and appropriate public education and proposed several proposed resolutions. However, the complaint fails to allege any issues or propose any resolutions as to Aspire. Student stated only that she was placed in a general education class at Aspire Slauson Academy Charter. Without more, Aspire is left without sufficient information to defend the complaint. The complaint neither included issues, nor proposed resolutions to the issues as to Aspire. The complaint against Aspire is insufficient.
Therefore, Aspire’s notice of insufficiency is granted. The matter will proceed as scheduled against Los Angeles.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D) as to Aspire.
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
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 as to Aspire.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint as to Aspire
will be dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated as to Aspire. This matter will
proceed as scheduled against Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
for DATED: November 19, 2019 Sabrina Kong Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings