California OAH special education order · November 26, 2019
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2019110519 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient and declined Capistrano SELPA's request to be dismissed, ruling that a sufficiency challenge is not the proper way to decide whether the SELPA is a proper party.
Summary
Capistrano SELPA filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's complaint and asked to be dismissed from the case. OAH found all four issues sufficiently pleaded, each with a discrete timeline and enough facts to let the district and SELPA respond. The issues were parent participation, IEP design, the IEP offer, and implementation. OAH also held that a sufficiency determination cannot be used to decide whether the SELPA is a proper party, so it made no ruling on the dismissal request.
Why it matters
A SELPA cannot use a notice of insufficiency to get itself dropped from a case. Whether it is a proper party must be raised through a separate motion, such as a motion to dismiss.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CAPISTRANO
SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2019110519
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
On November 14, 2019 Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Capistrano Unified School District and Capistrano SELPA. On November 26, 2019, Capistrano SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint requesting dismissal from 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 Capistrano Unified School District and Capistrano SELPA to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
A determination of sufficiency is not an appropriate vehicle to determine whether Capistrano SELPA is a proper party to this action. Thus, no determination is made to that request.
Student presented four issues. Student’s first issue alleges Capistrano Unified and Capistrano SELPA denied Student a free appropriate public education by interfering in Parent’s ability to fully participate in the IEP process. Student’s second issue alleges Capistrano Unified and Capistrano SELPA denied Student a FAPE by failing to design an IEP specifically designed to meet Student’s unique needs. Student further alleges Capistrano Unified and Capistrano SELPA failed to offer Student an IEP to specifically designed to meet Student’s needs. Finally, Student alleges Capistrano Unified and Capistrano SELPA failed to implement Student’s IEP. All issues are supported with a discrete timeline and facts sufficient to provide Capistrano Unified and Capistrano SELPA an awareness of the issues.
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 26, 2019 Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings