California OAH special education order · June 14, 2023
Order of Determination of Insufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023060053 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because its three claims gave no school year, no clear problem description, and no supporting facts, and its remedy request for financial support and "justice" was not well-defined.
Summary
Arvin Union School District and Aurora Learning Center challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. OAH agreed. The three claims, which seemed to involve possibly a different district, a behavior and transportation dispute, and an IEP meeting, did not identify the school year, clearly describe the problem, or give enough facts. The requested remedy of financial support and "justice" was not well-defined, so Student was given 14 days to file an amended complaint or face dismissal, and all dates were vacated.
Why it matters
Even under liberal pleading standards, a complaint must name the school year, describe each problem with specific facts, and propose concrete remedies. Parents without attorneys can ask OAH for a mediator to help them frame their issues before they amend.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Ed. Code, § 56505
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46,540-46541, 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.
ARVIN UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AURORA LEARNING
CENTER.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023060053
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF INSUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
JUNE 14, 2023
On June 1, 2023, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Arvin Union School District and Aurora Learning Center. On June 13, 2023, Arvin Union School District and Aurora Learning Center 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
Student’s complaint alleges three insufficiently pled claims. One claim seems to address an issue at potentially a different school district. Another claim seems to involve a disagreement regarding behavior and transportation, and finally, the final claim seems to address issues with an individualized education program meeting. None of the claims identify the school year at issue, a clear description of the nature of the problem or sufficient facts relating to the problem. The complaint fails to provide Arvin and Aurora Learning Center with the required problem description and the facts relating to the problem.
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 not well-defined. Specifically, Student requests as a remedy to be supported financially and for justice, justice, justice, and more justice.
A parent without an attorney may request that OAH provide a mediator to assist the parent in identifying the issues and proposed resolutions that must be included in a complaint. (Ed. Code, § 56505.) Parents are encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II). Student is encouraged to contact OAH for assistance if they intend to amend their due process hearing request.
3. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii), and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Tiffany Gilmartin Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings