California OAH special education order · June 4, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Insufficient
OAH Case No. 2024050983 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH found Student's complaint insufficient because it described facts about Student's education since fall 2022 but never stated the legal issues Burbank was alleged to have violated.
Summary
Burbank challenged the sufficiency of Student's due process complaint. The ALJ agreed, finding that the complaint gave a factual history but did not state the issues to be decided at hearing. The section titled "Appropriate and Individualized Educational Program" only restated Burbank's general duty to offer a program based on Student's unique needs, which is not a legal issue. Student may file an amended complaint within 14 days or the case will be dismissed, and all previously set dates were vacated.
Why it matters
A complaint needs more than a factual story and a general statement of the district's duties. It must clearly name each specific legal issue, such as a particular denial of FAPE, so the case is not delayed by a sufficiency challenge.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(D)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II)
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 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.
BURBANK UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024050983
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
INSUFFICIENT
JUNE 4, 2024
On May 24, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Burbank Unified School District, called Burbank. On June 3, 2024, Burbank 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 46540-46541, 46699.)
DISCUSSION
Student’s complaint fails to include a statement of the issues to be decided at the due process hearing, such that Burbank is aware of the problem relating to the proposed change regarding Student’s identification, evaluation, or educational placement, or providing Student a free appropriate public education. While the complaint includes a statement of facts related to Student’s education since the fall of 2022, the complaint does not clearly explain the legal issue or issues Student alleges based on these facts.
Student’s complaint instead includes a section titled “Appropriate and Individualized Educational Program.” However, this section broadly states that Burbank was obligated to offer Student a special education program based on her unique needs, based on what Burbank knew or should have known about Student. This is not a legal issue, but a general restatement of one Burbank’s obligations under special education law. Overall, the complaint fails to provide Burbank with the required problem description and the facts relating to the problem.
ORDER
1. Student’s complaint is insufficiently pled under section title 20 United States
Code 1415(c)(2)(D).
2. Student shall be permitted to file an amended complaint under title 20 United
States Code section 1415(c)(2)(E)(i)(II).
3. 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.
4. If Student fails to file a timely amended complaint, the complaint will be
dismissed.
5. All dates previously set in this matter are vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings