California OAH special education order · December 9, 2020
Order Denying Notice of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2020110541 · ALJ Adrienne L. Krikorian
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it laid out three issues with sub-issues, a time frame, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions, enough for Los Angeles Unified to respond.
Summary
Los Angeles Unified filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The ALJ found that the complaint identified the time frame (April 25, 2019 to filing), three issues with multiple sub-issues, adequate facts, and proposed resolutions for each issue. The sub-issues included failure to assess in all areas of need and IEPs lacking appropriate present levels, measurable goals, accommodations, and related services. The complaint was deemed sufficient, and all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that sets out a time frame, specific issues and sub-issues, supporting facts, and proposed resolutions will usually survive a district's sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleadings liberally.
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)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2020110541
ORDER DENYING NOTICE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
DECEMBER 9, 2020
On November 17, 2020, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Los Angeles Unified School District. On December 2, 2020, Los Angeles Unified timely filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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.)
Here, Student’s complaint identifies the required general facts about Student.
The complaint identifies the applicable time frame at issue, from April 25, 2019 through the time the complaint was filed. The complaint identifies three issues, each with multiple sub-issues, describing the areas in which Student alleges Los Angeles Unified denied Student a free appropriate public education. Those sub issues include failing to appropriately conduct assessments in all areas of need, failing to offer individualized education programs that contained appropriate statements of present levels of performance, measurable goals, accommodations, and related services. The complaint identifies numerous proposed resolutions pertaining to each issue.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Los Angeles Unified to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, the complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1). All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Adrienne L. Krikorian Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings