California OAH special education order · November 2, 2022
Order Determining Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2022110003 · ALJ Marlo Nisperos
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting Irvine's argument that Issue One was overbroad, because the complaint described many specific claims and gave enough facts for Irvine to respond.
Summary
Irvine filed a Notice of Insufficiency. It argued that Student's Issue One was overbroad and did not name the specific areas of disability-related need the district failed to address or in which Student did not progress. The ALJ held that Issue One, which alleges that Irvine's program since July 8, 2021 failed to address each area of need and to support progress, was sufficiently pled. The complaint described many claims and gave enough facts for Irvine to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation, so all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
OAH reads complaints liberally. A broad issue statement that alleges the district failed to address all areas of need can survive a sufficiency challenge if the complaint's factual allegations explain the claims.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46699 (Aug. 14, 2006)
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.
IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022110003
ORDER DETERMINING COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
NOVEMBER 2, 2022
On October 28, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Irvine Unified School District. On November 2, 2022, Irvine 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 46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Irvine contends that Issue One of Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled because it is overbroad. Irvine also claims that Issue One does not identify the areas of disability-related need that Student alleges the district failed to address or the areas of disability-related need in which Student alleges he did not make progress. Irvine argues that Student should be required to identify the specific areas of disability-related needs in Issue One that Student alleges the district’s offer did not address, and the areas in which Student alleges he did not make adequate progress. Irvine states that there is reference to some of Student’s disability-related needs in paragraphs 32 through 44 of the hearing request but Irvine contends it cannot determine if Issue One is limited to the statements in those paragraphs or not.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s Issue One alleges that, at all times since July 8, 2021, the program offered by Irvine has failed to appropriately address each area of Student’s disability-related need and to facilitate his progress in all areas of deficit, thereby denying him a free appropriate public education.
Student’s complaint describes many claims of how Student contends Irvine failed to address his needs. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Irvine respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the Issue One is sufficient.
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