California OAH special education order · June 7, 2021
Order Denying Motion to Compel Further Response to Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021040283 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH denied Student's motion to force Ventura to answer a 206-paragraph complaint paragraph by paragraph, because neither the IDEA nor state law lets the filing party challenge the sufficiency of a district's response.
This case went to decision
Student v. Ventura Unified School District: Ventura Unified must fund two private evaluations and up to $19,000 in compensatory services; claims before April 2019 time-barred. (2022)
Summary
Student asked OAH to order Ventura to file a further response, arguing that Ventura's five-page response was inadequate because it did not answer each of the complaint's 206 paragraphs. Ventura did not oppose the motion. OAH denied it. OAH explained that the IDEA requires a district response with four specific parts. Only the party named in a complaint may challenge a pleading's sufficiency. Nothing lets the filing party dictate the format or challenge the substance of the district's response.
Why it matters
Parents cannot use a motion to compel to make a district answer a complaint point by point. Once the district files a response that meets the IDEA's basic requirements, its brevity is not a ground for relief, so disputes over its content belong at hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- 34 C.F.R. § 300.508(e)(1)
- M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189
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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021040283
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL FURTHER
RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT
JUNE 7, 2021
On April 8, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Ventura Unified School District. On April 22, 2021, Ventura filed a response to Student’s complaint. On April 22, 2021 and May 5, 2021, Ventura filed an amended response and second amended response, respectively, to several correct errors.
On May 26, 2021, Student filed a motion to compel responsive pleading. No opposition has been received.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1415, et seq.) requires a school district to respond to a parent’s complaint within 10 days if it has not already sent a prior written notice. (20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(c)(2)(B)(i)(I) & 1415(c)(2)(B)(ii).) The due process hearing should not go forward if the school district has not responded to the complaint. (M.C. v. Antelope Valley Union High School (9th Cir. 2017) 858 F.3d 1189, 1199.)
A school district response must include four parts. It must contain an explanation of why the school district proposed or refused to take the action raised in the complaint, and a description of other options considered and why they were rejected. It must also describe the evaluation procedure used as the basis for the proposed or refused action, and a description of other factors relevant to the proposed or refused action. (34 C.F.R.
§ 300.508(e)(1).)
The IDEA also gives the parties named in the complaint the right to challenge the complaint’s sufficiency. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c).) However, there is no provision in the IDEA or State law for the party filing the complaint to challenge the sufficiency of the response.
Here, Ventura has responded to Student’s complaint. Student contends that Ventura’s five-page response is insufficient because it fails to respond to Student’s 206- paragraph complaint, paragraph by paragraph. Student cites no authority permitting Student as the filing party to dictate the format of Ventura’s response beyond what the IDEA requires, and the IDEA provides no process for Student to challenge the substance of Ventura’s response.
Accordingly, Student’s motion to compel a further response from Ventura is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings