California OAH special education order · November 25, 2020
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020110446 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. Grossmont's argument that it is not the responsible district, based on the conservator's residency, belongs in a separate motion to dismiss, not a sufficiency challenge.
Summary
Student's conservator filed a due process complaint against Grossmont, and Grossmont filed a notice of insufficiency arguing it is not the local educational agency responsible for Student's education because of where the conservator lives. OAH found that the complaint identifies the issues and gives enough facts for Grossmont to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so the three claims are sufficient. The ALJ said the residency argument could be raised in a separate motion to dismiss supported by sworn declarations or documents, which Student could answer. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge tests only whether the complaint clearly states the problems, facts, and proposed fix. Defenses such as which district is responsible for the student, based on residency, must be raised through a properly supported 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 Fed. Reg. 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.
GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020110446
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
NOVEMBER 25, 2020
On November 13, 2020, Conservator on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Grossmont Union High School District. On November 25, 2020, Grossmont filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. Grossmont alleges that it is not the local educational agency responsible for providing Student a free appropriate public education.
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 Grossmont to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the three claims is sufficient.
Grossmont asserts it is not the local educational agency responsible for providing Student a free appropriate public education, based on the residency of Student’s conservator. As such, Grossmont may file a separate motion to dismiss, supported by sworn declarations or documentary exhibits as appropriate, and Student will be afforded the opportunity to respond.
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.
3. Nothing in this Order prevents Grossmont from filing a separate, timely,
motion to dismiss the complaint based upon residency issues.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings