California OAH special education order · September 13, 2022
Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022080873 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH denied San Juan's notice of insufficiency without prejudice because it challenged Student's amended complaint, which was not the operative complaint after OAH denied Student's motion to amend.
Summary
San Juan filed a Notice of Insufficiency against Student's amended complaint. San Juan said the amended complaint was the only complete complaint it had received and that it had never been served with the operative complaint filed August 26, 2022. OAH had already denied Student's motion to amend, so the amended complaint was not the operative complaint. Because OAH only rules on the sufficiency of the operative complaint, it denied the notice without prejudice, made no sufficiency determination, confirmed all dates, and noted San Juan could ask to adjust the filing date to match when it is actually served.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must target the operative complaint, so parents should make sure the district is properly served with the complaint actually on file. If service is late, the district can ask OAH to reset the filing date, which changes the timelines.
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)
- 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 JUAN UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022080873
ORDER DETERMINING SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
SEPTEMBER 13, 2022
On August 26, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Juan Unified School District. On August 29, 2022, Student filed an amended complaint and request for due process hearing, naming San Juan. On September 12, 2022, OAH issued an Order Denying Student’s Motion to Amend.
On September 13, 2022, San Juan filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the amended complaint. San Juan’s motion asserts that Student attempted to serve the complaint and request for due process hearing on August 29, 2022. San Juan did not receive a complete copy of the complaint and asked Student to provide a complete complaint. On August 30, 2022, Student sent San Juan a document titled “Petitioners Amended Complaint and Request for Due process Hearing”. San Juan asserts it has not been served with the operative complaint in this matter which was filed with OAH on August 26, 2022.
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 Juan filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the amended complaint because that is the only complete complaint provided to San Juan. The amended complaint is not the operative complaint in this matter. OAH only determines whether an operative complaint meets the sufficient pleading standard of the IDEA. As a result, San Juan’s notice of insufficiency is denied without prejudice as it attacks the sufficiency of a non- operative complaint.
Nothing in this order prevents San Juan from filing a request to adjust the filing date of Student’s complaint to conform to the date on which it is served with the operative complaint.
ORDER
1. No determination is made regarding the sufficiency of the operative
complaint under title 20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Marlo Nisperos Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings