California OAH special education order · September 7, 2023
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2023080865 · ALJ Cynthia Fritz
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient and refused to dismiss it, holding that Los Alamitos's argument that a privately placed Student had no right to extended school year services as stay put went to the merits.
This case went to decision
Student v. Los Alamitos Unified School District: Los Alamitos Unified did not have to provide summer 2023 ESY at a private school under a 2022 IEP amendment. (2023)
Summary
Student's complaint raised one issue: whether Los Alamitos denied Student a free appropriate public education by refusing to provide the extended school year services in a June 8, 2022 amendment IEP as stay put. Los Alamitos filed a notice of insufficiency and asked for dismissal. It argued that Student was privately placed, not enrolled in the district, and so not entitled to a FAPE or to extended school year services as stay put. The ALJ found the complaint sufficient because it stated the issue and supporting facts, and ruled that the district was really asking for a decision on the merits, which is not the purpose of a notice of insufficiency.
Why it matters
A notice of insufficiency tests only whether the complaint gives the other side fair notice of the issues and facts. A district cannot use it to win the case early by arguing the merits, such as whether a privately placed student is entitled to stay put services.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b) & (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. 46540-46541, 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.
LOS ALAMITOS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023080865
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
SEPTEMBER 7, 2023
On August 25, 2023, Parents on behalf Student filed a due process hearing, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Los Alamitos Unified School District. On September 6, 2023, Alamitos filed a notice of insufficiency and requested dismissal of this action.
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 considering 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
Los Alamitos argues that Student’s complaint is insufficient because it fails to include a description of the nature of Student’s problem relating to the provision of a free appropriate public education, called FAPE, to Student. Specifically, Los Alamitos maintains that Student is not entitled to receive a FAPE because Student is privately placed and not enrolled or attending Los Alamitos and thus, not entitled to extended school year services as stay put.
Student sole issue in the complaint is: “Whether District has denied Student FAPE by refusing to implement the last agreed upon offer of ESY from an Amendment IEP dated 6/8/2022 as “stay put”.” Student acknowledges in the complaint that the dispute is the parties’ different opinions regarding Los Alamitos’ FAPE responsible to Student as it relates to extended school year services as stay put. However, Los Alamitos seeks a ruling on the merits as to the sole issue in this matter, which is not the purpose of a notice of insufficiency.
Here, the complaint is sufficient. It sets forth the issue and supporting facts to allow Los Alamitos to prepare for a resolution session, mediation, due process hearing, and to defend itself in this matter.
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.
Cynthia Fritz Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings