California OAH special education order · September 13, 2022
Order Determining Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022090019 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, ruling that its claims about the May 2022 IEP's placement, occupational therapy, and speech services gave Downey enough facts to respond.
Summary
Downey filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Student alleged that the IEP team meetings held May 6 and May 25, 2022, offered an inappropriate placement and services, and that the occupational therapy and speech and language services were insufficient. Student asked for placement at Rio Hondo Elementary and compensatory education. OAH found the issues and facts were stated clearly enough for Downey to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, and that the proposed resolution was well-defined, so all prehearing conference and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEP meeting dates, the services claimed to be inadequate, and a concrete remedy will usually survive a sufficiency challenge, because OAH reads pleadings liberally.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 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.
DOWNEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022090019
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 Downey Unified School District. On September 12, 2022, Downey 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 alleges Downey denied him a free appropriate public education based on Downey’s failure to provide an appropriate program and services designed to meet Student’s educational needs.
Student contends that the individual educational program team meetings held on May 6, 2022, and completed on May 25, 2022, offered an inappropriate placement and services. Student asserts that a different placement would have been more appropriate to meet Student’s needs. Student also claims that the occupational therapy and speech and language services were insufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Downey to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s issue is pled sufficiently.
Student’s proposed resolutions requests placement at Rio Hondo Elementary school and compensatory education. A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time.
(20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The proposed resolution stated in Student’s complaint is well-defined. Student has met the statutorily required standard regarding proposed resolutions.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
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