California OAH special education order · May 27, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022050674 · ALJ Penelope S. Pahl
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Hollister's claim that it was defective for not naming another district, because which agency owed Student a FAPE is a factual dispute and a possible defense.
Summary
Hollister filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Hollister argued the complaint was insufficient because it did not name another district that Hollister said was responsible for Student's free appropriate public education for at least part of the time covered by the complaint. OAH found the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for Hollister to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. OAH ruled that which agency was responsible for FAPE is a question of fact, Hollister had only raised a possible defense, and a factual dispute does not make a complaint insufficient. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a sufficiency challenge to argue that some other agency is responsible for the student. That is a defense to raise at hearing, not a pleading defect, so parents do not have to name every possibly responsible district for the complaint to go forward.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 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.
HOLLISTER SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022050674
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
MAY 27, 2022
On May 19, 2022, Parent on behalf of Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Hollister Unified School District as respondent. On May 27, 2022, Hollister 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.] 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 46541, 46699.)
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Hollister to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Hollister asserts that the complaint is insufficient because it does not name another district who, Hollister argues, is the party responsible for providing Student with a free, appropriate public education or FAPE for at least part of the time covered by the complaint. The party responsible for providing FAPE is a question of fact. Hollister has identified a possible defense. A factual dispute does not result in a complaint being insufficient.
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.
Penelope S. Pahl Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings