California OAH special education order · June 10, 2024
Order Clarifying Issue and Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024051042 · ALJ Ashok Pathi
OAH found Student's single-issue complaint sufficient, rejecting Fontana's broader reading and clarifying that the claim is narrowly about 30 minutes of weekly tutoring for receptive comprehension omitted from the April 22, 2024 IEP.
Summary
Fontana filed a Notice of Insufficiency challenging Student's due process complaint. Student's complaint raised one issue: that Fontana denied a free appropriate public education from April 22 through May 29, 2024, by not offering 30 minutes per week of tutoring in the April 22, 2024 IEP to address receptive comprehension needs. The ALJ said Fontana was reading the issue too broadly. The claim, as clarified, was narrow and backed by enough facts to give Fontana an awareness and understanding of the issue, so the complaint was sufficient and all dates were confirmed.
Why it matters
A narrow, specific claim tied to one IEP, one goal, and one requested service can survive a sufficiency challenge even when the district tries to read it more broadly. ALJs may clarify the issue rather than dismiss it.
Key authority cited
- 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(7)(A)
- Sen. Rep. No. 108-185 (2003), p. 34
- H.R.Rep. No. 108-77 (2003), p. 115
- 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.
FONTANA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024051042
ORDER CLARIFYING ISSUE AND DETERMINING DUE
PROCESS COMPLAINT SUFFICIENT
JUNE 10, 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 Fontana Unified School District, called Fontana. On June 6, 2024, Fontana 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 includes a single issue. Student alleges that Fontana denied him a free appropriate public education from April 22, 2024, through May 29, 2024, by failing to offer 30 minutes per week of tutoring in the April 22, 2024, IEP to address Student’s receptive comprehension needs. As clarified through this Order, Student’s issue is sufficiently pled.
Fontana suggests a much broader reading of Student’s narrow issue. However, Student’s issue is not written so broadly. Student clearly alleges that he did not make meaningful progress on a single, specific receptive comprehension goal and requires additional support in the form of weekly tutoring. Student’s issue, as pled and clarified by this Order, is supported by sufficient facts such that Fontana has “an awareness and understanding of the issues forming the basis of the complaint.” (Sen. Rep. No. 108- 185, supra, at p. 34.)
Student’s complaint identifies the issue and provides adequate facts about the problem to permit Fontana to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation, and to defend itself in a due process hearing. Therefore, Student’s statement of his sole claim is sufficient.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Ashok Pathi Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings