California OAH special education order · December 14, 2023
Order of Determination of Sufficiency of Due Process Complaint
OAH Case No. 2023120028 · ALJ June Lehrman
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it detailed the IEP dates, the specific program deficiencies, and claims about implementation, IEP timing, and assessment, giving Oxnard enough information to respond.
Summary
Oxnard filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. The complaint alleged that, from the start of the 2022-2023 school year to the present, Oxnard denied Student an appropriate program. It also alleged that Oxnard wrote unclear IEPs, failed to implement them, failed to hold a required IEP meeting, and failed to evaluate and hold an IEP meeting within 60 days of a signed assessment plan. OAH found the complaint sufficient because its detailed factual history identified the IEPs and specific deficiencies, and all scheduled dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A complaint that names the specific IEP dates, the areas where the program fell short, and related procedural failures will likely survive a sufficiency challenge. OAH reads pleadings liberally in light of the IDEA's remedial purpose.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- M.S.-G v. Lenape Regional High School Dist. Bd. of Educ. (3d Cir. 2009) 306 Fed.Appx. 772
- 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.
OXNARD UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2023120028
ORDER OF DETERMINATION OF SUFFICIENCY OF DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT
DECEMBER 14, 2023
On November 30, 2023, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Oxnard Union High School District. On December 13, 2023, Oxnard 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 alleges that between the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year and the present, Oxnard “denied [Student] an educational program appropriate to address her disability-related deficits and to facilitate her progress in all areas of identified disability-related deficit.”
Specifically, Oxnard “fail[ed] to offer [Student] access to an appropriate program of special education placement, supports, and services, which further denied her educational opportunity.” The complaint contains a detailed factual history that delineates the dates of the individualized education plans, or IEP’s, in question, and the specific areas in which Student alleges the offered program was deficient. Student further alleges that the IEP’s were unclearly written, that Oxnard failed to implement them, that Oxnard failed to hold an IEP when due, and that Oxnard failed to conduct an evaluation and hold an IEP within 60 days of a signed assessment plan. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit Oxnard to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the claims 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