California OAH special education order · November 18, 2020
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020100133 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient. Student fixed earlier defects by adding specific facts about an October 2020 IEP, which let Santa Rosa Academy understand and respond to the three claims.
Summary
Santa Rosa Academy filed a third notice of insufficiency, this time against Student's second amended complaint. OAH had found both the original and first amended complaints insufficient. This time the ALJ ruled the complaint sufficient because Student added specific facts tied to an October 17, 2020 IEP. The complaint now states three claims: failure to implement the IEP's goals, services, and accommodations; school testing policies that caused a lack of progress in reading; and failure to provide testing accommodations, which affected reading and a possible dyslexia diagnosis. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Parents whose complaints are found insufficient can cure the problem by tying each claim to specific facts, such as a dated IEP and the particular goals, services, or accommodations at issue. OAH reads pleadings liberally once the basic facts are there.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185, p. 34
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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.
SANTA ROSA ACADEMY.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020100133
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
On October 2, 2020, Parent on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Santa Rosa Academy. On October 7, 2020, Santa Rosa Academy filed a notice of insufficiency as to the complaint. On October 8, 2020, OAH found Student’s complaint to be insufficient and gave Student 14 days to file a legally sufficient amended complaint.
On October 15, 2020, Student filed an amended complaint. On October 21, 2020, Santa Rosa filed a timely notice of insufficiency as to the amended complaint. On October 26, 2020, OAH found Student’s amended complaint to be insufficient and gave Student 14 days to file a legally sufficient second amended complaint.
On November 9, 2020, Student filed a second amended complaint. On November 16, 2020, Santa Rosa filed a timely notice of insufficiency as to the amended 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 second amended complaint are sufficient.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Santa Rosa to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student cured the defects in the original and amended complaints by adding specific facts relating to an Individual Education Program, referred to as IEP, dated October 17, 2020. In second amended Issue One, Student alleges that Student’s IEP of October 17, 2020, is not being implemented with respect to goals, services, and accommodations. In second amended Issue Two, Student alleges that school policies violated Student’s rights to take tests on campus, which led to a lack of progress in reading. In second amended Issue Three, Student alleges Santa Rosa has not provided accommodations necessary to allow Student to take tests, which impacted his reading and a potential diagnosis of dyslexia. Therefore, Students statement of the three claims is sufficient.
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.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings