California OAH special education order · July 19, 2023
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023061055 · ALJ Cole Dalton
OAH deemed Student's complaint sufficient because Sacramento City filed its Notice of Insufficiency more than 15 days after being served and offered no evidence for its claimed later receipt date.
Summary
Student filed and faxed a due process complaint to Sacramento City on June 29, 2023. Sacramento City filed a Notice of Insufficiency on July 18, 2023, and claimed it did not receive the complaint until July 3, 2023. Sacramento City filed no declaration or other evidence to support that claim, so OAH found the notice untimely under the 15-day rule. The complaint was therefore deemed sufficient, and all mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A sufficiency challenge must be filed within 15 days of receiving the complaint. A district that says it received the complaint later than the proof of service shows must back that up with a declaration or other evidence. Parents should keep a proof of service showing when the complaint was served.
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)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 46,540-46541, 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:
PARENT ON BEHALF OF STUDENT,
v.
SACRAMENTO CITY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023061055
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE PROCESS
COMPLAINT
JULY 19, 2023
On June 29, 2023, 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 July 18, 2023, Sacramento city filed a Notice of Insufficiency as to the complaint.
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.)
Student filed his complaint with OAH and served it by facsimile on Sacramento City on June 29, 2023, as evidenced by the proof of service attached to Student’s complaint. Sacramento City filed its Notice of Insufficiency with OAH and served it on Student on July 18, 2023, more than 15 days after Student served his complaint.
Sacramento City alleges, in the Notice of Insufficiency, that it received Student’s complaint on July 3, 2023. However, Sacramento City failed to file a declaration, or provide any other evidence, supporting this allegation. Accordingly, Sacramento City’s Notice of Insufficiency was not timely filed. Therefore, Student’s complaint is deemed sufficient.
Based on the foregoing, OAH orders as follows:
1. The complaint is deemed sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(c)(2)(C) and Education Code section 56502, subdivision (d)(1).
2. All mediation, prehearing conference, and hearing dates in this matter are
confirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Cole Dalton Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings