California OAH special education order · June 30, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022060022 · ALJ Judith Pasewark
OAH found Student's amended complaint sufficient, rejecting Apple Valley's challenge because its statute-of-limitations arguments require factual findings that cannot be made at the sufficiency stage.
Summary
Student's first complaint had been found insufficient, and Student then filed an amended complaint against Apple Valley Unified School District. The District filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging the amended complaint. OAH ruled that the amended complaint supplied the missing elements identified in ALJ Hohensee's June 13, 2022 determination and gave the District enough information to understand the issues and take part in a resolution session and mediation. OAH also ruled that the District's arguments about exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations raised factual questions that cannot be decided in a sufficiency review, and it confirmed all scheduled dates.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge only tests whether the complaint gives fair notice of the issues. Disputes over whether a statute-of-limitations exception applies are factual questions for later, so parents can fix an insufficient complaint by amending it to address the ALJ's specific concerns.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
- 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. 46540-46541, 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
People named in the order
- Hohensee, Administrative Law Judge who issued the prior determination of insufficiency
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.
APPLE VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022060022
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
JUNE 30, 2022
On June 16, 2022, Student filed an Amended Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Apple Valley Unified School District. On June 24, 2022, Apple Valley Unified 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).
The complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party notifies OAH and the other party in writing within 15 days of receiving the complaint that the party believes the complaint has not met the notice requirements. (20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C); Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1).)
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. Apple Valley Unified School District’s arguments regarding the insufficiency of Student’s complaint require a factual determination of the validity of Student’s contentions regarding the exceptions to the two-year statute of limitations. Student’s amended complaint contains the missing elements described in ALJ Hohensee’s June 13, 2022 Determination of Insufficiency of Student’s initial complaint. Determination of sufficiency a complaint is not a determination of fact, rather Student’s complaint is only required to identify the issues and allege adequate facts to permit Apple Valley Unified School District to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Student’s amended complaint provides sufficient information for Apple Valley Unified School District to understand the issues and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement claims are sufficient.
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.
Judith Pasewark Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings