California OAH special education order · January 28, 2020
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020010422 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's one-paragraph complaint insufficient because its vague placement and transportation allegations did not give Temecula Valley notice of the basis of the claims, and allowed 14 days to amend.
Summary
Temecula Valley challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. The complaint was one paragraph and appeared to raise questions about placement and transportation, including a transportation agreement that would expire in December. OAH found both claims insufficiently pled because, even under liberal pleading standards, the facts did not put the District on notice of the basis of the complaint. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even self-represented parents must give enough facts, such as what happened, when, and what remedy is wanted, for the district to understand each claim. Parents without a lawyer can ask OAH for a mediator to help frame the issues before amending.
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)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 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.
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020010422
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
JANUARY 28, 2020
On January 14, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Temecula Valley Unified School District. On January 28, 2020, Temecula 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 two insufficiently pled claims. Student’s complaint is one paragraph, which on its face appears to raise a question related to placement and transportation. Parents also allege that a transportation agreement was obtained during an unspecified time period and would expire in December. Even with the liberal pleading standards of a due process filing, the facts are insufficient to put Temecula Valley on notice of the basis of Parents’ complaint.
MEDIATOR ASSISTANCE FOR NON-REPRESENTED PARENTS: A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint.
(Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
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.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 28, 2020 Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings