California OAH special education order · January 14, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Second Amended Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2021120652 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's second amended complaint sufficient because its single claim, that the SELPA gave no prior written notice denying rehabilitation counseling before exiting Student from special education, gave adequate notice.
Summary
Student's first two complaints against East San Gabriel Valley SELPA were found insufficiently pled. Student then filed a second amended complaint, and the SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency against it. OAH found the second amended complaint sufficient. Its one claim alleged the SELPA did not provide prior written notice denying 30-minute rehabilitation counseling sessions every two weeks before exiting Student from special education, and that was enough to tell the SELPA how to take part in a resolution session and mediation. All prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names one specific failure, such as a missing prior written notice tied to a particular service and an exit from special education, can meet the pleading standard even after earlier versions failed. Families can keep amending to narrow and clarify their claims.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 FR 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.
EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY SELPA.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2021120652
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF
SECOND AMENDED DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
JANUARY 14, 2022
On December 20, 2021, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. On December 23, 2021, OAH determined the complaint was insufficiently pled, and gave Student an opportunity to amend the complaint.
On January 3, 2022, Student filed a first amended complaint, naming East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. On January 4, 2022, OAH determined the first amended complaint was insufficiently pled.
On January 4, 2022, Student filed a second amended complaint, naming East San Gabriel Valley SELPA. On January 13, 2022, East San Gabriel SELPA filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the second amended 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
Student’s second amended complaint alleges one claim. The second amended complaint alleges generally that respondent did not provide prior written notice denying 30-minute rehabilitation counseling sessions every two weeks before exiting Student from special education. This claim is sufficiently pled to put respondent on notice regarding how to participate in a resolution session and mediation.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings