California OAH special education order · April 28, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040407 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's seven-claim complaint sufficient and declined to rule on Ventura Unified's motion to dismiss because it was improperly combined with the notice of insufficiency in one filing.
Summary
Ventura Unified filed a notice of insufficiency arguing Student's complaint was vague, confusing, and disjointed, and failed to connect the requested relief to the facts. OAH found the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for the District to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so all seven claims were sufficient. The District had also included a motion to dismiss in the same filing. OAH did not address it because only one motion may be raised per pleading, but the District may refile it.
Why it matters
Sufficiency challenges are judged liberally, so a complaint that gives a district a basic understanding of the issues will usually survive. Districts that bundle a motion to dismiss with an insufficiency notice may have the dismissal motion ignored and need to refile it.
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 FR 46,540-46541, 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.
VENTURA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040407
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
APRIL 28, 2022
On April 13, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Ventura Unified School District. On April 26, 2022, Ventura Unified 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. Ventura Unified argues that the complaint is insufficiently pled and should be dismissed on grounds that it is vague and confusing, alleges disjointed facts, obfuscates Student’s issues for hearing, fails to draw a nexus between requested relief and pled facts, and fails to promote fairness of due process by denying the District sufficiently pled information with which to mount a defense at hearing. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Ventura Unified to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student’s first claim is for relief under the IDEA and related California Education code. The remaining claims are requested pursuant to other federal and state laws.
Ventura Unified included a motion to dismiss with the notice of insufficiency. OAH permits one motion to be raised in a single pleading. As a result, Ventura Unified’s motion to dismiss Student’s complaint is not addressed in this Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint. This order does not preclude Ventura Unified from refiling its motion to dismiss.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the seven 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.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings