California OAH special education order · October 25, 2021
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2021100282 · ALJ Tara Doss
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it never said why or how Glendale's June 9, 2021 IEP offer for 2021-2022 denied Student a FAPE, and gave Student 14 days to amend.
Summary
Glendale filed a Notice of Insufficiency, arguing that Student's complaint did not clearly identify the issues or include supporting facts. The complaint alleged that Glendale had failed to offer an appropriate placement since the start of the 2021-2022 school year. Most of its three-plus pages of facts came before that period. The only relevant facts were that Glendale held a June 9, 2021 IEP meeting and made a FAPE offer, and that Parents gave notice they would continue the private placement; nothing explained why or how that IEP denied a FAPE. OAH found the complaint insufficient, allowed an amended complaint within 14 days, warned that the case will be dismissed if none is filed, and vacated all dates.
Why it matters
Pages of background history are not enough: the complaint must include specific facts tying the claimed FAPE denial to the challenged IEP offer, such as what was wrong with the placement offered. This is especially important when parents are seeking reimbursement for a private placement.
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, p. 34
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 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.
GLENDALE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021100282
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
OCTOBER 25, 2021
On October 12, 2021, Student filed a Request for Due Process Hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, called OAH, naming Glendale Unified School District. On October 22, 2021, Glendale filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint, on the grounds that Student failed to clearly identify the issues for hearing and failed to include relevant supporting facts.
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.)
Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled. In paragraph 2, the complaint alleges the following issue:
“At all times since the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, [Glendale] has failed to offer [Student] an educational placement that would allow her to access the general education curriculum and make meaningful academic progress, thereby denying her a FAPE.”
While the complaint includes more than three pages of facts, most of the facts predate and are not relevant to the alleged issue. The relevant facts alleged are that Glendale held an IEP team meeting on June 9, 2021, offered Student a FAPE for the 2021-2022 school year, and that based on Glendale’s offer, Parents gave prior written notice that they would continue Student’s private placement. The complaint does not include any specific facts as to why or how the June 9, 2021 IEP denied Student a FAPE.
Consequently, the complaint does not include enough information for Glendale to have an awareness and understanding of the issues that form the basis of the complaint, or to effectively prepare for a resolution session, mediation, or due process hearing.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under title 20 United States Code
section 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student may file an amended complaint under title 20 United States Code
section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II), which must comply with the requirements of title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and must be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this Order.
3. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
4. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
Tara Doss Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings