California OAH special education order · May 9, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Partially Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024040004 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH found Issue 1 of Student's first amended complaint insufficient because it never identified which IEP provisions Escondido Union failed to implement; Issues 2 through 8 were sufficient.
Summary
Escondido Union challenged only Issue 1 of Student's first amended complaint, which alleged a failure to implement Student's IEP over two years. OAH found the issue did not say which parts of which IEPs went unimplemented. It also found that the only related allegation, failing to 'develop and implement' a behavior intervention plan, was really a claim that no plan was offered. OAH gave Student 14 days to amend, or the hearing would go forward on Issues 2 through 8 only.
Why it matters
A failure-to-implement claim must name the specific IEP and the specific services or provisions the district did not deliver. Calling a missing behavior plan a failure to 'implement' does not turn it into an implementation claim.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- 71 FR 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.
ESCONDIDO UNION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024040004
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
PARTIALLY SUFFICIENT
MAY 9, 2024
On March 29, 2024, Student filed a due process hearing request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Escondido Union Elementary School District. On April 12, 2024, Escondido Union filed a notice of insufficiency as to the complaint.
On April 16, 2024, OAH determined that Student’s complaint was partially sufficient, with multiple claims being found insufficiently pled. OAH gave Student leave to file an amended complaint.
On April 25, 2024, Student filed his first amended complaint, alleging eight issues against Escondido Union. On May 8, 2024, Escondido Union filed a notice of insufficiency only as to Issue 1 of Student’s first amended 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 46540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Student alleges eight claims in his first amended complaint. However, Escondido Union only challenges the sufficiency of Student’s Issue 1.
Student’s Issue 1 broadly alleges that Escondido Union denied Student a free appropriate public education during the two years prior to the filing of Student’s complaint by failing to implement Student’s individualized education program, called an
IEP.
The issue does not specify what portions of which IEPs Student is alleging Escondido Union failed to implement. Moreover, nowhere in Student’s amended complaint is an allegation that Escondido Union failed to implement any portion of Student’s operative IEPs during the relevant timeframe.
The only references to Escondido Union’s alleged failure to implement any part of Student’s program, are allegations that Escondido Union “failed to develop and implement a Behavior Intervention Plan.” Despite Student’s use of “implement”, Student’s claim is that Escondido Union did not offer a behavior intervention plan as part of Student’s program. Therefore, Student failed to state sufficient facts supporting this claim, and the claim is insufficient.
ORDER
1. Issues 2 through 8 in Student’s first amended complaint are sufficient under
title 20 U.S.C. section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. Issue 1 of Student’s first amended complaint is insufficiently pled under title
20 United States Code section 1415(c)(2)(D).
3. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
4. The amended complaint shall comply with the requirements of title 20 U.S.C.
section 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii) and shall be filed not later than 14 days from the date of this order. The filing of an amended complaint will restart the applicable timelines for a due process hearing.
5. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the hearing shall proceed
only on Issues 2 through 8 of Student’s first amended complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings