California OAH special education order · June 13, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024051010 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient, rejecting San Jose's challenge to Issue Six and Proposed Resolution Seven, noting San Jose's simultaneous motion to dismiss showed it understood the issue well enough to defend.
Summary
San Jose filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging only Student's Issue Six and Proposed Resolution Seven. OAH found the complaint identified the issues and gave enough facts for San Jose to respond and take part in resolution, mediation, and hearing. San Jose's filing of a motion to dismiss Issue Six at the same time showed it understood the claim. Although Proposed Resolution Seven was not well defined, it met the legal standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available, and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A district that files a detailed motion to dismiss a claim will have a hard time arguing it cannot understand that claim. Proposed resolutions only need to be stated as far as they are known at filing, not perfectly defined.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185
- Escambia County Bd. of Educ. v. Benton (S.D. Ala. 2005) 406 F.Supp.2d 1248
- 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.
SAN JOSE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024051010
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
JUNE 13, 2024
On May 29, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming San Jose Unified School District, called San Jose. On June 12, 2024, San Jose 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
San Jose has limited its challenge to Student’s Issue Number six. The facts alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint identifies the issues and adequate facts about the problem to permit San Jose to respond and participate in a resolution session, mediation, and due process hearing.
Further, San Jose’s filing of a motion to dismiss Student’s Issue Number Six concurrently with the instant Notice of Insufficiency demonstrates that San Jose sufficiently understands Student’s Issue Number Six such that it can mount a defense.
Overall, Student’s Issue Number Six is sufficiently pled. However, this Order makes no findings or determinations regarding San Jose’s pending motion to dismiss or OAH’s jurisdiction over Student’s Issue Number Six.
San Jose also challenges Student’s Proposed Resolution Request Number Seven.
A complaint is required to include proposed resolutions to the problem, to the extent known and available to the party at the time. (20 U.S.C. §1415(b)(7)(A)(ii)(IV).) The Proposed Resolution Number Seven stated in Student’s complaint is not well defined.
However, Student has met the statutorily required standard of stating a resolution to the extent known and available to Student at the time.
ORDER
1. The complaint is sufficient under title 20 United States Code section
1415(b)(7)(A)(ii).
2. All dates in this matter are confirmed.
3. This Order makes no findings or determinations regarding San Jose’s pending
motion to dismiss or OAH’s jurisdiction over Student’s Issue Number Six and Proposed Resolution Number Seven.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings