California OAH special education order · June 21, 2021
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021060188 · ALJ Laurie Gorsline
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient. A missing digit in the child find timeline did not make the claim vague, because the only possible reading was September 2019 to September 2, 2020.
Summary
Student filed a due process complaint alleging child find violations, a failure to find Student eligible under specific learning disability at a November 12, 2019 Section 504 meeting, and denial of meaningful parent participation. The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging only Problem 1 as vague and lacking a specific timeline. The ALJ found that the last digit of the year was missing but could only mean 2020, since September 2, 2021 was still in the future. OAH read the timeline as September 2019 to September 2, 2020, found the complaint sufficient, and confirmed all prehearing conference and hearing dates.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally and will fix obvious typos, such as a missing year digit, rather than find a claim insufficient. Even so, families should state clear date ranges to avoid sufficiency challenges.
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 Education v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Education (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
People named in the order
- Laurie Gorsline, Administrative Law Judge
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.
CORONADO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021060188
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
JUNE 21, 2021
On June 2, 2021, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Diego Unified School District. On June 17, 2021, San Diego 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 Education 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.]; Cf. M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. Of Education (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 asserts as problem number 1 that San Diego violated its child find obligations by failing to locate, identify and evaluate Student “[b]etween September 2019 and September 2, 202 . . .” Based on the other allegations in the complaint, specifically in Problem 2, Parent contends Student should have been found eligible for special education under the category of specific learning disability at a November 12, 2019 504 meeting, and the failure to do so was a denial of a free appropriate public education, or FAPE. Parent also contends that San Diego prevented Parent from participating in that meeting in a meaningful way and in the decision- making process. As resolutions, Student seeks compensatory education in the form of tutoring through Summer 2021, reimbursement for tutoring services, and compensatory damages because Student was denied college admission.
San Diego challenges only problem 1, claiming it is vague and fails to provide a specific timeline. Although the last digit of the year is missing from problem 1, the only year that Student could have meant is 2020 because September 2, 2021 is in the future.
Therefore, OAH interprets the timeline as between September 2019 and September 2,
2020. The facts and proposed resolutions alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit San Diego to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of claims is sufficient.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Laurie Gorsline Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings