California OAH special education order · November 24, 2021
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021110471 · ALJ Cararea Lucier
OAH found Murrieta Valley's complaint sufficient because it stated the basis for its request to assess Student: the district had not assessed Student within the past three years.
This case went to decision
Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. Student: Murrieta Valley Unified may not reassess an eighth grader without consent because it made no reasonable effort to obtain Parents' informed consent. (2022)
Summary
Murrieta Valley filed a due process complaint naming Student, and Parents filed a Notice of Insufficiency. OAH found the complaint sufficient. Contrary to Student's notice, the complaint explained why the district wanted to assess Student, which was that it had not assessed Student in the past three years. The complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for Student to take part in a resolution session and mediation, so all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A district complaint seeking to assess a student only needs to state a basic reason, such as no assessment in three years, to survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleadings liberally. Parents should not expect a notice of insufficiency to stop a district's assessment case.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed.Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
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:
MURRIETA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,
v.
PARENTS ON BEHALF OF STUDENT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021110471
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
NOVEMBER 24, 2021
On November 16, 2021, Murrieta Valley Unified School District filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Student. On November 24, 2021, Parents on behalf of Student 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
The facts alleged in Murrieta Valley’s complaint are sufficient. Contrary to Student’s allegations in his Notice of Insufficiency, Murrieta Valley’s complaint includes the basis for its request to assess Student, which is that Murrieta Valley has not assessed Student within the past three years. Murrieta Valley’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Student to participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Murrieta Valley’s statement of the two claims 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cararea Lucier Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings