California OAH special education order · September 14, 2020
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2020090137 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH found Student's form complaint insufficient because it omitted Student's school, never clearly named Escondido as respondent, and used generic allegations that could apply to any child; leave to amend granted.
Summary
Escondido challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, which alleged in general terms that the district failed to implement Student's IEP since March 2020 and changed it without notice. OAH agreed the complaint was insufficient: it left out Student's current school, referred only to an undefined "School District," and did not identify the IEP or services in dispute. OAH noted the complaint was identical to form complaints filed by the same out-of-state attorneys that OAH had already rejected. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint, either through a California-licensed attorney or by Parent as a self-represented litigant.
Why it matters
A due process complaint must be specific to the child, naming the school, the district, and the particular IEP services in dispute. Boilerplate form complaints will be rejected. Representatives must also be licensed to practice law in California.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b)
- Ed. Code § 56502(d)(1)
- 100 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 19 (2017)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
People named in the order
- Peter G. Albert, Student's attorney
- Patrick Donohue, Student's attorney
- Dr. Luis A. Rankins-Ibarra, Escondido Union School District official (complaint addressee)
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.
ESCONDIDO UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020090137
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 14, 2020
On September 3, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH. On September 4, 2020, Escondido Union School District, called Escondido, filed a notice of insufficiency as to the complaint.
APPLICABLE LAW
The named parties have the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency within 15 days of receiving the complaint. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c); Ed Code, § 56502 subd.
(d)(1).) The party filing the complaint is not entitled to a hearing unless the complaint meets the legal requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) (2006).)
A complaint must include the name of the child, the address of the child's residence, and the name of the school the child is attending. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) (2006).) 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.)
On September 28, 2017, the attorney general issued an opinion letter which considered whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the implementing regulations, and/or the California Education Code authorized a party to special education due process proceedings to be represented by a person that was not an active member of the California State Bar. The attorney general’s opinion concluded that these laws did not authorize parties to a special education due process hearing to be represented by a person that is not an active member of the California State Bar in due process hearings. (100 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 19 (2017).)
DISCUSSION
Escondido asserts that the complaint is insufficient because it fails to identify Students current school of attendance and a named respondent and uses boilerplate language without supporting facts. Thus, it argues, the complaint should be deemed insufficient.
Student's complaint is an improper form pleading that insufficiently pled claims as explained below.
STUDENT'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO IDENTIFY HIS CURRENT SCHOOL OF
ATTENDENCE.
A complaint must include the name of the school the child is attending. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(I); 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(b) (2006).) Here, Student failed to include his current school of attendance in his complaint. Thus, it fails to comport with the Individuals with Disabilities Act legal requirements. Accordingly, the complaint is insufficient.
STUDENT'S COMPLAINT FAILS TO IDENTIFY A NAMED RESPONDENT.
Student's complaint is a three-page letter addressed to Dr. Luis A. Rankins-Ibarra of Escondido Union School District. The body of the complaint, however, fails to specifically name a respondent. It refers only to the "School District" but the phrase "School District" is undefined. Thus, the complaint is vague and unclear as what school district is the respondent in this matter. Escondido is neither named in any causes of action, nor mentioned in the proposed resolutions. Since Student failed to properly name a respondent, the complaint fails to state sufficient facts that give Escondido an awareness and understanding of the issues and proposed resolutions as they pertain to it. Thus, the complaint is insufficiently pled.
STUDENT'S COMPLAINT IS VAGUE.
Student primarily alleges that Escondido failed to implement Student’s Individualized Education Program, called IEP, since March of 2020, failed to provide Parent with notice of a change in Student’s IEP, and materially changed the IEP. The issues are general and not specific to Student, as the complaint fails to identify the IEP or services that are in dispute. Student’s allegations are overly vague and fails to provide sufficient information for Escondido to understand the issues forming the basis of the complaint.
The complaint is identical to complaints for other students filed by Attorneys Peter G. Albert and Patrick Donohue, which OAH deemed insufficient. (See Student v.
Poway Unified School District (August 25, 2020) OAH Case No. 2020080526 [Order Finding Student’s Due Process Complaint Insufficient]; Student v. Saddleback Valley Unified School District (August 27, 2020) OAH Case No. 2020080561 [Order Finding Student’s Due Process Complaint Insufficient].) Student’s attorneys overlook that each child’s educational program is unique and a complaint alleging a denial of a free appropriate public education must be specific to Student. Here, the complaint could be for any child in any school district, thereby making it impossible for Escondido to prepare for a resolution session or mediation for this matter. For these reasons, Student’s complaint is insufficient.
Attorneys Peter G. Albert and Patrick Donohue filed the complaint on behalf of Student. Neither attorney appears to be authorized to practice law in the State of California, in violation of the above authority. Consequently, Attorneys Albert and Donohue were not authorized to file the complaint on behalf of Student. Accordingly, Student shall file the amended complaint through an attorney licensed to practice law in California or through Parent as a self-represented litigant.
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.
Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings