California OAH special education order · May 31, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022050604 · ALJ Sabrina Kong
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified the problems and proposed remedies; Cabrillo's argument that the claims require enforcing a settlement agreement goes to jurisdiction, not sufficiency.
Summary
Cabrillo Point Academy challenged the sufficiency of Student's complaint. The complaint alleged that Cabrillo failed to provide a placement, special education services, compensatory education, an assessment plan, an agreed nonpublic school, and an updated IEP. OAH found these allegations and the requested remedies specific enough for Cabrillo to respond. The ALJ noted that Cabrillo's real objection was that the claims would require OAH to interpret and enforce a September 23, 2021 settlement agreement, which is a jurisdiction question. Cabrillo may raise it in a separate motion to dismiss.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency is not the right tool to argue that OAH lacks jurisdiction over settlement-agreement disputes. Districts must file a motion to dismiss for that, and parents' complaints are read liberally for sufficiency.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
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.
CABRILLO POINT ACADEMY.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022050604
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
MAY 31, 2022
On May 16, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Cabrillo Point Academy, called Cabrillo. On May 26, 2022, Cabrillo 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 Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing 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 Cabrillo to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student complains specifically that Cabrillo did not provide: a placement; special education services; compensatory education; an assessment plan; a mutually agreement non-public school; and an updated the individualized education program, called an IEP. Student requests preferred placements, compensatory education, assessment, and an IEP amongst other resolutions to the complaint.
The gravamen of Cabrillo’s dispute as to Student’s complaint was not that the allegations and resolutions were non-specific, but that the issues identified in Student’s complaint required OAH to adjudicate the terms of the parties’ September 23, 2021 settlement agreement, and its implementation, which Cabrillo argues are outside OAH’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Student’s statement of the Issues One through Issues Seven as to Student’s claims is sufficient. Cabrillo may file a separate motion to dismiss regarding OAH’s jurisdiction should it wish OAH to rule on that basis.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sabrina Kong Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings