California OAH special education order · November 17, 2021

Order Finding Student's Complaint Sufficient

OAH Case No. 2021100851 · ALJ Peter Paul Castillo

OAH found all three of Student's issues sufficiently pleaded, holding that Assurance's statute of limitations argument on the triennial assessment claim belongs in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.

Complaint found sufficient Sufficiency of complaint

Summary

Assurance Learning Academy filed a notice of insufficiency challenging all three issues in Student's complaint. The issues alleged that the February 2020 and February 2021 IEPs denied a FAPE because they lacked present levels of performance and offered deficient goals and services, and that Assurance never did a triennial psychoeducational assessment, so the IEP teams relied on an outdated April 2016 assessment. OAH found the complaint detailed enough for Assurance to respond, take part in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for hearing. OAH also ruled that Assurance's statute of limitations argument is the subject of a motion to dismiss, not a sufficiency challenge.

Why it matters

A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives enough notice of the claims and facts. Defenses like the statute of limitations must be raised through a motion to dismiss, so parents should not lose claims at the sufficiency stage on timeliness grounds.

Key authority cited

  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
  • 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
  • Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
  • H.R.Rep. No. 108-77
  • 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699

Topics

sufficiency triennial assessment present levels of performance statute of limitations iep goals

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.

ASSURANCE LEARNING ACADEMY.

OAH CASE NUMBER 2021100851

ORDER FINDING STUDENT’S COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT

NOVEMBER 17, 2021

On October 28, 2021, Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Assurance Learning Academy. On November 12, 2021, Assurance filed a notice of insufficiency as to the three issues alleged in Student’s 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 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, called a FAPE; includes facts about the problem; and 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 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699.)

DISCUSSION

The facts alleged at Issues 1 and 2 of Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student alleges that she presented with academic deficits while at Assurance, but despite trivial progress and no triennial assessment, Assurance drafted individualized education programs, or IEPs, that failed to include present levels of performance and offered deficient goals and services to give Student the academic support she needed. Issue 1 alleges that the IEP of February 11, 2020, and its amendments, denied Student a FAPE.

Issue 2 alleges that the February 2, 2021 IEP, and its amendments, denied Student a FAPE. Student’s detailed complaint identifies the claims and adequate facts about the problem to permit Assurance to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for a due process hearing, on Issues 1 and 2.

Issue 3 is also sufficiently pleaded. Student alleges that Assurance had an obligation to, but did not, conduct a triennial psychoeducational assessment to inform the IEP teams about Student’s present levels of performance. The complaint alleges that as a result, Student’s IEP teams had to rely on outdated information from an April 2016 triennial assessment. Assurance contends that Issue 3 is outside the statute of limitations. However, that is the subject of a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency. Student’s complaint identifies the claim and adequate facts about Issue 3 to permit Assurance to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation, and prepare for a due process hearing, on Issue 3.

Therefore, Student’s statement of Issues 1, 2 and 3 is sufficient.

ORDER

1. The complaint 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 are

confirmed.

Peter Paul Castillo Presiding Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings