California OAH special education order · February 19, 2020
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020011030 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Natomas's notice of insufficiency was untimely, and added that the complaint would have been sufficient even if the notice had been filed on time.
Summary
Natomas challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. Its notice was filed and served on February 19, 2020, more than 15 days after it received the January 28, 2020 complaint. Natomas said it had e-filed the notice on February 6, but it did not show it ever got confirmation that the filing went through. OAH found the notice untimely, reviewed the complaint anyway out of caution, deemed it sufficient, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A party challenging a complaint's sufficiency must file within 15 days and should confirm that its electronic filing actually reached OAH. A late notice means the complaint is automatically deemed sufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 46540-46541, 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.
NATOMAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020011030
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
FEBRUARY 19, 2020
On January 28, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Natomas Unified School District. On February 19, 2020, Natomas 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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 was filed on January 28, 2020. Natomas’s NOI was dated February 6, 2020, filed with OAH, and served on February 19, 2020, which is more than 15 days after it received Student’s complaint. Natomas attached a declaration to its NOI which states that Natomas previously electronically filed the NOI on February 6, 2020, and learned for the first time, on February 18, 2020, that OAH never received the filing.
The declaration did not state that Natomas received verification that the February 6, 2020 electronic filing was successful. Accordingly, Natomas’s NOI was not timely filed within 15 days of receiving Student’s complaint. However, the undersigned reviewed Student’s complaint out of an abundance of caution. Even had Natomas timely filed an NOI, Student’s complaint would have been deemed sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings