California OAH special education order · May 3, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040545 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Newman-Crows Landing Unified's arguments about a missing time period, statute of limitations, and jurisdiction, because the complaint gave enough notice to respond.
Summary
Newman-Crows Landing Unified filed a Notice of Insufficiency. It argued that issue one was vague because it did not state a time period and its supporting facts span 2010 to 2021. It also argued the complaint did not explain how Student would get around the statute of limitations, and that the remaining claims were outside OAH's jurisdiction. OAH held that all six claims were sufficiently pled because the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the district has fair notice of the claims. Statute of limitations and jurisdiction arguments do not make a complaint insufficient, and parents do not have to plead around the limitations period in the complaint itself.
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 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.
NEWMAN-CROWS LANDING UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040545
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
MAY 3, 2022
On April 18, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District. On May 2, 2022, Newman-Crows Landing 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. Newman-Crows Landing Unified argues that Student’s IDEA claims, alleged in issue one, are vague and fail to put it on notice of the issues. Newman-Crows Landing Unified contends that issue one is insufficiently pled because it is silent as to the time period at issue and because the facts to support the claim span from 2010 to 2021. Newman-Crows Landing Unified alleges that the complaint is insufficiently pled because it does not include an argument or statement that might support an attempt to pierce the statute of limitations. Newman- Crows Landing Unified contends the remainder of the complaint is insufficiently pled because it alleges claims that are outside of OAH’s jurisdiction. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Newman-Crows Landing Unified to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the six claims is sufficient.
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