California OAH special education order · June 17, 2021
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint as to San Diego Unified School District
OAH Case No. 2021060238 · ALJ Claire Yazigi
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient against San Diego Unified. It clearly alleged the district failed to implement Student's IEP and provide any services after Student began living within its boundaries.
Summary
San Diego Unified School District filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint, which also named Grossmont Union High School District and the San Diego County Office of Education. The complaint said Student had lived within San Diego's boundaries since April 27, 2021, and was receiving no educational services. It alleged San Diego denied a FAPE by failing to implement Student's IEP and failing to provide educational services. OAH found these allegations, along with the requested remedies of an appropriate placement, IEP implementation, and compensatory services, met the minimal pleading standard and gave San Diego enough notice to prepare. All dates as to San Diego were confirmed.
Why it matters
A short, clear statement of what the district failed to do and what remedy is sought is enough to survive a sufficiency challenge. This holds even in multi-district residency disputes, as long as the complaint explains why each district is responsible.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Schaffer v. Weast (2005) 546 U.S. 49
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- 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:
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
GROSSMONT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, SAN DIEGO
UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND SAN DIEGO COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021060238
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT AS TO SAN DIEGO UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
JUNE 17, 2021
On June 3, 2021, 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, San Diego Unified School District, and San Diego County Office of Education. On June 16, 2021, San Diego Unified School District, hereafter referred to as 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).
Minimal pleading standards apply to requests for due process pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, (2005) 546 U.S. 49, 54 [126 S.Ct. 528, 163 L.Ed.2d 387.] 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.]; 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 explains that while Parent lives in Grossmont Union High School District, Studently has resided within the bounds of San Diego since April 27, 2021. The complaint also states that Student was not receiving any education services at the time of the complaint. Student’s Issue Two sets forth two specific ways in which Student alleges San Diego denied Student a FAPE: San Diego failed to implement Student’s IEP and San Diego failed to provide educational services to Student. Student seeks appropriate educational placement, implementation of Student’s IEP, and compensatory services. These recitations are sufficient to meet California’s minimal pleading standard. The complaint provides San Diego with sufficient notice of the claims against it to participate in resolution session and mediation, and to prepare for hearing.
ORDER
1. The complaint as to San Diego 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 as to
San Diego are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Claire Yazigi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings