California OAH special education order · August 9, 2023
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023080152 · ALJ Tiffany Gilmartin
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient despite naming three agencies together, holding Student bears the burden at hearing to prove which entity denied a FAPE and when.
Summary
KIPP Comienza Community Prep filed a notice of insufficiency. It argued that the complaint did not show which of the three named agencies was responsible for each claim, and that KIPP SoCal is a non-profit rather than a charter school and should be dismissed. OAH found the complaint sufficient because it gave a detailed factual history and identified KIPP Comienza as Student's placement for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. OAH declined to decide whether KIPP SoCal is a proper party, explaining that a sufficiency challenge cannot be used as a motion to dismiss, and noted that prior OAH orders are not binding precedent.
Why it matters
A parent can name several agencies together in a complaint without splitting out each one's responsibility at the pleading stage, but must prove at hearing which agency failed the child and when. A district that wants a party removed must file a proper motion to dismiss rather than a sufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3085
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 Fed. Reg. 46540-46541, 46699
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
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.
KIPP SOCAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS, KIPP COMIENZA COMMUNITY
PREP, AND LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023080152
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
AUGUST 9, 2023
On August 2, 2023, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming KIPP SoCal Public Schools, KIPP Comienza Community Prep School, and Los Angeles Unified School District. On August 9, 2023, KIPP Comienza Community Prep School 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
The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s statement of facts provided a detailed history of Student’s educational journey from initial assessment through his present placement.
Student’s factual recitation identified KIPP Comienza as Student’s placement during 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years. The matter was filed on August 2, 2023, and Student did not allege any exceptions to the statute of limitations was applicable.
KIPP Comienza Community Prep argues it is impossible to determine who was responsible for the claims for relief and proposed resolutions. Student elected to collectively name all three local education agencies in its legal issue section. It will be Student’s burden to establish at hearing which entity or entities denied Student a free appropriate public education and at which point in time.
Moreover, KIPP Comienza argues KIPP SoCal is not a charter school, but a non-profit organization and should be dismissed from the complaint. A determination of sufficiency is not an appropriate vehicle for a motion to dismiss. No determination is made in this order whether KIPP SoCal is a proper party. KIPP further cited another case involving the same law firm representing Student as evidence to support their determination of insufficiency being granted. OAH decisions and orders are not precedential and binding on other Administrative Law Judges. (Cal Code Regs., tit. 5, § 3085.)
Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit KIPP SoCal Public Schools, KIPP Comienza Community Prep School, and Los Angeles Unified School District to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Any further discussion of the issues will be addressed at the Prehearing Conference prior to the due process hearing.
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.
Tiffany Gilmartin Tiffany Gilmartin Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings