California OAH special education order · September 29, 2022
Order Denying Motion for Clarification
OAH Case No. 2022090021 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH denied Student's motion to clarify an issue in his complaint because San Diego never filed a timely notice of insufficiency, and the complaint's body already explained the issue.
This case went to decision
Student v. San Diego Unified School District: San Diego Unified prevails on all claims; no duty to offer FAPE while parents privately placed student out of state. (2023)
Summary
San Diego's response to Student's due process complaint said some issues were duplicative and noted that the term "IEP" was missing from Issue 1.x. Student then moved to clarify Issue 1.x. OAH denied the motion. San Diego had not filed a notice of insufficiency within 15 days, so Student did not need to fix the claimed problems. The complaint's body also clearly stated that Issue 1.x challenged San Diego's failure to revise the November 5 and November 13, 2020 IEPs. Any further clarification can be made at the prehearing conference.
Why it matters
A complaint is deemed sufficient unless a party files a written notice of insufficiency within 15 days, so a parent does not have to amend in response to complaints about wording raised only in a district's response. Small wording problems can be cleaned up at the prehearing conference.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(C)
- Ed. Code, § 56502, subd. (d)(1)
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 DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022090021
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION
SEPTEMBER 29, 2022
On August 31, 2022, Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Diego Unified School District. On September 9, 2022, San Diego filed a response to Student’s complaint, requesting withdrawal of perceived duplicative issues from Student’s complaint. San Diego also noted omission of the term individualized education program, or IEP, from Student’s Issue 1.x.
On September 14, 2022, Student filed a motion to clarify regarding the contentions in San Diego’s response. Specifically, Student requests that he be allowed to clarify Issue 1.x.
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).)
DISCUSSION
San Diego did not file a notice of insufficiency within 15 days from the filing of Student’s complaint. Student is not required to amend their complaint regarding perceived deficiencies not identified in a notice of insufficiency.
Here, Student clearly states, in the body of his complaint, beginning at page 21, lines 12 through 28 and at page 25, lines 12 through 18, that Issue 1.x. alleges San Diego denied Student a free appropriate public education by failing to revise November 5, 2020 and November 13, 2020 IEPs. Any further clarification of such issues for hearing can be made during the prehearing conference in this matter.
ORDER
Student’s motion to clarify his complaint is denied. All prehearing conference and hearing dates in this matter are confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cole Dalton Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings