California OAH special education order · December 7, 2022
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2022110488 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH denied Sacramento's notice of insufficiency. The notice may have been untimely given fax service, and Student's complaint tied each issue to a specific IEP or school year and described the alleged deficits.
Summary
Sacramento filed a Notice of Insufficiency on December 6, 2022, challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint had been served by fax and mail on November 17, 2022. OAH noted that fax service is effective on the date of the fax if complete and without error, and Sacramento did not explain why it did not receive the fax, so its notice may have been untimely. Even if the notice was timely, the complaint was sufficient: each issue identified a specific IEP or school year and the particular alleged deficits, such as behavior assessments and services, goals, distance learning, parent training, eligibility category, and procedural violations.
Why it matters
The 15-day deadline to challenge a complaint can run from the date of a completed fax, so districts must explain any claimed late receipt. Parents can defeat an insufficiency challenge by tying each issue to a specific IEP or school year and naming the specific deficits.
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)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3083
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 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.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2022110488
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
DECEMBER 7, 2022
On November 17, 2022, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Sacramento City Unified School District. On December 6, 2022, Sacramento 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
Student’s complaint was filed on November 17, 2022. The proof of service states that it was served both by fax and by regular mail. Sacramento’s NOI was dated, filed with OAH, and served on December 6, 2022, which is more than 15 days after the faxed service of the complaint on November 17, 2022. Sacramento’s Notice of Insufficiency avers that it did not receive a copy of the complaint until November 21, 2022.
Service of documents in special education due process proceedings is governed by the California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 3083, which states that service of notice, motions, or other writings pertaining to special education due process hearing procedures shall be delivered personally or sent by mail “or other means” to the party's attorney or other authorized representative. Unless otherwise specified, the form of mail, service or notice by mail may be by first-class mail, registered mail, or certified mail, by mail delivery service, by facsimile transmission if complete and without error, or by other electronic means as provided by regulation, in the discretion of the sender.
Fax service is legally authorized and effective as of the date of the fax “if complete and without error.” Sacramento’s NOI does not address if or why it did not receive a copy of the faxed complaint on November 17, 2022, in which event its NOI would be untimely. However, even if Sacramento’s actual receipt date was not until November 21, 2022, and thus the NOI was timely filed, Student’s complaint is nevertheless factually sufficient. The NOI is denied.
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint alleges eight issues numbered A through K. Each issue identifies either a specific individualized education program or school year, and states the particular deficits alleged, for example behavior assessments and services, goals, distance learning, failing to offer parent training, eligibility category, and procedural violations. The issues and adequate facts about the problem stated are sufficient to permit Sacramento to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation.
Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims is 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.
June Lehrman Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings