California OAH special education order · November 9, 2023
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023100744 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient as to Issues 7 and 9 against Campbell Union, because the district's argument that Student had no IEP was a merits challenge, not a pleading defect.
This case went to decision
Student v. Campbell Union School District et al.: Campbell Union must hold a manifestation determination for a student without an IEP after removing her more than 10 days. (2023)
Summary
Campbell Union filed a notice of insufficiency challenging Issues 1, 7, and 9 of Student's complaint. An earlier order had already denied the challenge to Issue 1 because it involved expedited matters, where the insufficiency process is not available. Campbell Union argued that Issues 7 and 9, which allege predetermination of placement, missing prior written notices, and failure to address bullying, were vague and contradictory because Student had no IEP. OAH found the issues clearly stated with enough facts, and held that the district's argument asked for a ruling on the merits, which special education law does not allow through a summary-judgment-style procedure.
Why it matters
A district cannot use a notice of insufficiency to get a claim thrown out on the merits, such as arguing that a student without an IEP cannot bring certain claims. If the complaint gives the district enough notice of the problem and the facts, the claim goes forward to hearing.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- Alexandra R. v. Brookline School Dist. (D.N.H. 2009) 2009 WL 2957991
- 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.
MORGAN HILL UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CAMPBELL
UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023100744
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
NOVEMBER 9, 2023
On October 20, 2023, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Morgan Hill Unified School District and Campbell Union School District. On November 3, 2023, Campbell Union filed a Notice of Insufficiency with respect to Issues 1, 7, and 9 in complaint. By Order dated November 8, 2023, following an expedited prehearing conference, the notice of insufficiency was denied as to Issue 1, because Issue 1 references expedited matters as to which the notice of insufficiency process is unavailable. The notice of insufficiency is now denied also as to Issues 7 and 9, for reasons stated below.
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. The complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Campbell Union to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation and prepare for hearing.
Issue 7 alleges that Campbell Union denied Student free appropriate public education, or FAPE, during the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years by predetermining placement, disregarding her unique and individual needs in a continuum of service placements, and failing to provide parent with prior written notices. Issue 9 alleged that Campbell Union failed to offer Student a FAPE when it failed to provide appropriate programs, services and interventions to address bullying at school.
Campbell Union argues that Issues 7 and 9 are vague, confusing, and contradictory, as it is clear from the Complaint that Student does not have an IEP.
Therefore, it is unclear why the Complaint raises issues related to predetermination and bullying for a student without IDEA protections.
Although OAH will entertain motions concerning allegations that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction such as civil rights claims, section 504 claims, enforcement of settlement agreements, or incorrect parties, special education law does not provide for a summary judgment procedure. Here, the notice of insufficiency as to Issues 7 and 9 is not limited to matters that are facially outside of OAH jurisdiction, but instead seeks a ruling on the merits.
Therefore, Student’s statement of Issues 7 and 9 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