California OAH special education order · May 27, 2021
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2021050302 · ALJ Linda Johnson
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient: it did not need to name a specific IEP because it covered a defined time period, and it alleged a statute-of-limitations exception.
Summary
River Springs Charter School filed a Notice of Insufficiency. It argued that Student's complaint did not identify a specific IEP that denied a FAPE and gave no facts to toll the two-year statute of limitations. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It reasoned that Student identified a time period, December 11, 2017, through September 30, 2020, and alleged that every IEP in that period offered an inappropriate placement and that Student made no meaningful reading progress. Issue Four also alleged that River Springs misled Parent and withheld information, which is an exception to the limitations period. The proposed resolution asked for compensatory education; OAH called it not well-defined but said it met the statutory standard.
Why it matters
A complaint can challenge all IEPs over a stated time period without naming each one. Pleading facts that support a 'misled or withheld information' exception is enough to get past a sufficiency challenge on the statute of limitations.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540-46541, 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
RIVER SPRINGS CHARTER SCHOOL.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021050302
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
MAY 27, 2021
On May 10, 2021, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming River Springs Charter School. On May 25, 2021, River Springs filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the 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
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit River Springs to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student alleges four issues. River Springs argues Student does not identify a specific individualized education program, referred to as an IEP, that denied him a free appropriate public education, referred to as FAPE. While Student does not identify a specific IEP that denied him FAPE, he identifies a time period, December 11, 2017, through September 30, 2020, and alleges all IEPs developed during the time period denied him FAPE because the placement offered was not appropriate. Student also alleges he has not made any meaningful progress in reading. Student provided enough facts about the alleged denial of FAPE during the time period for River Springs to understand the nature of the problem.
River Springs also argues Student does not allege any facts as to why the two- year statute of limitations should be tolled. However, Student’s Issue Four alleges an exception to the statute of limitations claiming River Springs misled Parent and withheld information relating to its obligation to offer and provide services. Therefore, Student’s statement of the four claims is sufficient.
Student’s proposed resolution requests compensatory education. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint is not well-defined. However, Student has met the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions.
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.
Linda Johnson Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings