California OAH special education order · June 23, 2021
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021060267 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it only sought to extend a prior settlement's compensatory-services deadline without alleging how San Diego denied a FAPE, and denied the district's motion to dismiss as moot.
Summary
Student filed a complaint asking OAH to change a June 29, 2020 settlement agreement. The change would extend the deadline to use compensatory education from August 31, 2021, to August 21, 2022, because COVID-19 restrictions kept Parents from arranging in-person services. San Diego filed a Notice of Insufficiency and a separate motion to dismiss, arguing under Pedraza that OAH lacked jurisdiction. OAH granted the insufficiency challenge because the complaint did not allege how San Diego denied Student a FAPE, gave Student 14 days to amend, denied the motion to dismiss as moot, and vacated all dates.
Why it matters
A due process complaint that only asks OAH to rewrite a settlement agreement, such as extending a deadline to use compensatory services, will likely fail unless it also alleges facts showing a denial of FAPE. Families who need more time under a settlement should negotiate an extension with the district or plead a specific FAPE violation.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Pedraza v. Alameda Unified School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2007) 2007 WL 949603
- 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.
SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021060267
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
JUNE 23, 2021
On June 07, 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 22, 2021, San Diego filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint. San Diego also filed a motion to dismiss on June 14, 2021, that asserted that OAH did not have jurisdiction to hear Student’s complaint pursuant to Pedraza v. Alameda Unified School Dist. (N.D. Cal. 2007, No. C 05-04977
VRW) 2007 WL 949603.
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 alleges one issue regarding the parties’ June 29, 2020 Settlement Agreement in OAH Case Number 2020040310, which provided for compensatory education and gave Parents until August 31, 2021, to use these services.
Student wishes to modify the agreement to extend the time until August 21, 2022, as Parents have not been able to arrange for in-person services for Student due to COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. However, Student’s complaint is not sufficient as Student does not allege how San Diego denied Student a FAPE as Student’s complaint only seeks to modify the parties’ June 29, 2020 Settlement Agreement. Further, as OAH grants San Diego’s Notice of Insufficiency, its motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. San Diego’s motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
6. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Peter Paul Castillo Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings