California OAH special education order · November 25, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019110500 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the IEPs and dates at issue, alleged missed behavior intervention and speech services, and proposed a detailed formula for compensatory funding.
Summary
Summit Denali filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it described how Summit Denali allegedly denied a free appropriate public education by not providing behavior intervention and speech services, and it named specific IEPs and dates. OAH also noted that Summit Denali's own response showed it understood the claims. The proposed resolution, funding for missed services calculated with a detailed formula, met the legal requirement, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEPs, gives dates of missed services, and explains how compensatory services were calculated is likely to survive a sufficiency challenge. A district's own detailed response can also show that it understood the claims.
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
- 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.
SUMMIT DENALI PUBLIC CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110500
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On November 13, 2019, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Summit Denali Public Charter School. On November 22, 2019, Summit Denali 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 Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Summit Denali to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student describes why he believes Summit Denali denied Student a free appropriate public education including supporting fact alleging Summit Denali did not provide behavior intervention and speech services. Student specifically identifies Individual Education Programs at issue and dates of alleged noncompliance. Additionally, Summit Denali filed a response to the complaint on November 22, 2019, in which it demonstrates that it understands the nature of the problem. Therefore, Student’s statement of the two claims is sufficient.
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 resolution stated in Student’s complaint is well-defined. Student seeks funding for services to make up for the alleged services missed. Student includes a detailed formula for calculating the amount of services missed and the resulting request for funding. Student has met the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions.
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 25, 2019 Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings