California OAH special education order · April 20, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040154 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Burbank's challenge that it lacked facts supporting reimbursement for fall 2021, because the complaint gave enough information to respond and prepare.
Summary
Burbank filed a Notice of Insufficiency against Student's complaint. The complaint alleged that Burbank denied Student a FAPE from March 20, 2020, through late fall 2021 by not providing a program that met his disability-related needs, causing Parents to pay for placement and services. Burbank argued the complaint lacked facts supporting reimbursement for fall 2021 because Student was enrolled in the district's program then. The ALJ found the complaint identified the issue and gave adequate facts for Burbank to respond and take part in resolution and mediation, and confirmed all dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the problem. Arguments about whether a reimbursement claim has merit are for hearing, not grounds to find a complaint insufficient.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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.
BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040154
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
APRIL 20, 2022
On April 4, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Burbank Unified School District. On April 19, 2022, Burbank 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 Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint alleges that Burbank denied Student a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, between March 20, 2020, and late fall 2021, by failing to provide Student a program that met his individual disability-related learning needs. Student alleges that this denial of FAPE caused Parents to incur substantial costs to provide him with the placement, services and supports necessary to meet his needs. Burbank claims that Student has not provided sufficient facts to support the request for reimbursement during fall of 2021 because Student was enrolled in the district’s program at the time. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Burbank to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the single claim 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.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings