California OAH special education order · May 4, 2022
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2022040681 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it did not name Student's school of attendance and was inconsistent about the time period at issue; Student may amend within 14 days.
Summary
San Bruno Park School District filed a notice of insufficiency arguing that Student's due process complaint did not identify Student's school, was unclear about the time period, and lacked detail. OAH agreed the complaint was insufficient. It did not name Student's school of attendance as federal and state law require. It also gave conflicting time periods: it alleged a denial of FAPE since April 2020 but sought compensatory education back to the 2019-2020 school year, which the statement of problems did not cover. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under liberal pleading rules, a complaint must name the student's school and use a consistent time period across the issues and the remedies. Simple drafting gaps like these can delay a case and cancel scheduled dates.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code § 56502, subd. (c)(1)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed.Reg. 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.
SAN BRUNO PARK SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040681
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
MAY 4, 2022
On April 22, 2022, Parents on behalf of Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Bruno Park School District. On April 29, 2022, San Bruno Park School District 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
San Bruno Park School District asserts that Student's complaint is insufficient because it: (1) fails to identify Student's school of attendance, (2) is unclear and inconsistent as the time period, and (3) lacks sufficient detail.
Here, the complaint is insufficient. First, Student failed to name Student's school of attendance in the complaint as required under title 20 United States Code section 1415(b)(7)(A(ii) and Education Code section 56502 subdivision (c)(1)(A). Thus, the complaint is insufficient.
Second, the complaint is inconsistent as to the time period at issue in this matter.
In paragraph four of the complaint, it seeks a finding that the San Bruno has denied Student a FAPE since at least April 2020. In paragraph 7, it states any information outside of the statutory time period is for foundational purposes only. Later, in the proposed remedies, it requests compensatory education from the 2019-2020 school year through the present time; however, in the statement of problems, it does not identify the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, the time period at issue is unclear and inconsistent, rendering the complaint insufficient.
ORDER
1. Student's complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student will be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii) and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings