California OAH special education order · May 13, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022040954 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it named two school years and specific FAPE failures, leaving Modesto's question about which agency was responsible for decision at hearing.
Summary
Modesto City Schools filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint against Modesto and Stanislaus County Office of Education. OAH found the complaint sufficient. It identified the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years and alleged failures to offer an appropriate placement, mental health supports, social work services, and extended school year services, and failures to implement Student's IEP. OAH said Modesto's argument that it might not be the responsible local education agency is a substantive question for the evidentiary hearing, not a pleading defect, and confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. Disputes over which agency is responsible for a student's education are decided at hearing, not at the pleading stage, so parents may name more than one agency when responsibility is unclear.
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 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.
MODESTO CITY SCHOOLS AND STANISLAUS COUNTY OFFICE OF
EDUCATION.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022040954
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
MAY 13, 2022
On April 28, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Modesto City Schools and Stanislaus County Office of Education. On May 12, 2022, Modesto 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 identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Modesto City Schools and the Stanislaus County Office of Education to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Student’s complaint identifies two specific school years, 2020-2021 and 2021- 2022, where he alleges Modesto City Schools and Stanislaus County Office of Education denied him a free appropriate public education. Student’s complaint further alleges how Modesto denied him a FAPE by failing to offer an appropriate placement, mental health supports, social work services, extended school year services, and implementing Student’s IEP.
Modesto alleges a question of whether Modesto was the responsible local education agency. A determination of sufficiency makes no finding on substantive questions of law and fact. Those are questions reserved for an evidentiary hearing.
Student satisfies the liberal pleading requirement to give both respondents an opportunity to engage in the resolution process.
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.
Tiffany Gilmartin Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings