California OAH special education order · September 27, 2021
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021090346 · ALJ Paul H. Kamoroff
OAH found Student's form-template complaint sufficient because it alleged Capistrano failed to implement Student's February 2020 IEP by not providing in-person instruction during COVID-19 school closures.
Summary
Capistrano challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint, arguing it was a form template with little information about Student. OAH agreed the complaint was a template with only basic information, but found it sufficiently alleged a denial of FAPE through failure to implement Student's February 6, 2020 IEP during COVID-19 closures, and that it requested remedies including reimbursement, assessments, and in-person implementation. OAH noted that the Section 504 claim falls outside its jurisdiction and said Capistrano may seek dismissal of that claim through a separate motion. All dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
Even a bare-bones template complaint can survive a sufficiency challenge if it names a specific IEP, explains how the district failed to implement it, and proposes remedies. Section 504, ADA, and civil-rights claims, however, cannot be decided by OAH.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699
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.
CAPISTRANO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021090346
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
SEPTEMBER 27, 2021
On September 13, 2021, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Capistrano Unified School District. On September 24, 2021, Capistrano Unified School District 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
Capistrano asserts the complaint is insufficient because it is form template with slight information regarding Student. While the complaint is a form template with nominal information, it sufficiently alleges that Capistrano denied Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, by failing to implement Student’s February 6, 2020 individualized education program, called IEP. Student identifies the basis of this allegation as being Capistrano’s failure to provide in-person instruction during school closures related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Student seeks various remedies, including reimbursement for educational expenses, assessments, and for the IEP to be implemented in-person.
Student also alleges a claim pursuant to 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), that falls outside of OAH’s jurisdiction. OAH does not have jurisdiction to decide claims based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.), Section 1983 of Title 42 United States Code, the Americans with Disability Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 1201, et seq.), or the Unruh Civil Rights Act (Civ. Code, § 51).
Capistrano may seek to dismiss this issue through a separate motion.
Therefore, the facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient as to the issues described above. Student complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Capistrano to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Should Student believe that additional issues were included in the complaint, Student may timely amend the complaint.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient as to the issues described herein 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Paul H. Kamoroff Paul H Kamoroff Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings