California OAH special education order · August 16, 2021
Order Finding Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2021080248 · ALJ Alexa Hohensee
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it was a cookie-cutter pleading of general conclusions. It did not say which disability areas went unassessed or which IEPs and IEP components were challenged.
Summary
Los Angeles filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's complaint, which raised claims for the 2020-2021 school year, 2021 extended school year, and 2021-2022 school year. The ALJ found the complaint was a cookie-cutter pleading. It cited an unrelated 2015 IEP and otherwise made only general claims that Los Angeles failed to assess, draft appropriate goals, and offer an appropriate program. Because the complaint gave no facts identifying the unassessed areas or the challenged IEPs and components, Los Angeles could not prepare for mediation or hearing. Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under liberal pleading standards, a complaint must include facts specific to the student, such as which assessments were missing and which IEPs and components are disputed. Boilerplate allegations will not do. A template-style complaint can be found insufficient, which delays the case and puts all hearing dates on hold.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 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.
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021080248
ORDER FINDING COMPLAINT INSUFFICIENT
AUGUST 16, 2021
On August 9, 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 Los Angeles Unified School District. On August 13, 2021, Los Angeles timely 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, and 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 alleges two claims, one for the 2020-2021 school year and 2021 extended school year, and one for the 2021-2022 school year. Other than the time period at issue, the complaint is a cookie-cutter pleading filled with vague allegations and devoid of facts related to the specific nature of the problem. The complaint references an individualized education program, or IEP, from 2015, unrelated to the purported actions or inactions at issue five years later, but otherwise consists of nothing more than general conclusions, such as that Los Angeles failed to assess in all areas of disability, failed to draft appropriate goals, and failed to offer an appropriate program.
The complaint is silent on what areas of disability were not assessed, or which IEPs, and which components of those IEPs, are being challenged. Los Angeles cannot prepare for mediation or a due process hearing with such a lack of facts regarding Student’s two claims to put Los Angeles on notice on how it allegedly denied Student a FAPE.
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. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
Alexa Hohensee Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings