California OAH special education order · September 2, 2022
Order Determining Sufficiency of Amended Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040545 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Newman-Crows Landing's challenge because the 10 claims identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and participate in resolution and mediation.
Summary
Newman-Crows Landing filed a notice of insufficiency against Student's amended complaint. The district argued that the time periods were unclear, Issue 1 was contradictory, the specific IEPs were not listed, the misrepresentation allegation was unclear, and claims outside the two-year statute of limitations were not properly pled. OAH found all 10 claims sufficient because the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. All prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A complaint does not have to name every IEP date or plead perfect detail to go forward, as long as the district can understand the issues. Districts' technical objections, such as time periods or statute-of-limitations exceptions, are usually left for hearing rather than decided at the sufficiency stage.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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 DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF AMENDED DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
SEPTEMBER 2, 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 as respondent. On August 26, 2022, OAH granted Student’s motion to amend the complaint and the amended complaint.
On August 31, 2022, Newman-Crows Landing filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Newman-Crows Landing alleges the time period at issue for each claim is unclear. Newman Crows Landing contends that the allegations in Issue 1 are contradictory and are insufficiently pled.
Newman-Crows Landing states that the specific IEPs at issue are not listed and argues that the claims are insufficient due to that omission. Newman-Crows Landing asserts that the allegation of purported misrepresentation is unclear and the facts fail to provide insight as to the issues. Newman-Crows Landing also argues that Student’s attempt to raise claims outside the two-year statute of limitations is insufficiently pled.
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Newman-Crow’s Landing to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the 10 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