California OAH special education order · July 17, 2024
Order Determining Due Process Complaint Sufficient
OAH Case No. 2024070482 · ALJ Rita Defilippis
OAH found Student's complaint sufficient because it identified a single placement dispute with enough facts for Mountain View-Whisman to respond, and rejected the district's jurisdiction argument as a basis for insufficiency.
Summary
Mountain View-Whisman filed a Notice of Insufficiency two days after Student filed a due process complaint. The complaint raised one issue: Parents' disagreement with Student's special education placement. OAH found that the complaint identified the issue and gave enough facts for the district to respond and take part in a resolution session and mediation. OAH also held that the district's claim that OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction is not a reason to find a complaint insufficient, though the district may still raise jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss.
Why it matters
A short complaint that clearly states a single placement disagreement with supporting facts can survive a sufficiency challenge. Jurisdiction arguments belong in a motion to dismiss, not a notice of insufficiency.
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
- 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.
MOUNTAIN VIEW-WHISMAN SCHOOL DISTRICT.
OAH CASE NUMBER 2024070482
ORDER DETERMINING DUE PROCESS COMPLAINT
SUFFICIENT
JULY 17, 2024
On July 15, 2024, Student filed a Due Process Hearing Request, called a complaint, with the Office of Administrative Hearings, referred to as OAH, naming Mountain View-Whisman School District. On July 17, 2024, Mountain View-Whisman 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 issues alleged in Student’s complaint are sufficient. Student’s complaint raises one issue regarding Parents’ disagreement with the special education placement of Student. Student’s complaint identifies the issue and adequate facts about the problem to permit Mountain View-Whisman to respond and participate in a resolution session and mediation. Therefore, Student’s statement of the sole issue raised is sufficient. Mountain-View Whisman’s claim that OAH lacks subject matter jurisdiction is rejected as a reason to find Student’s complaint insufficient. Nothing in this order prevents Mountain-View Whisman from challenging jurisdiction in a Motion to Dismiss.
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.
Rita Defilippis Administrative Law Judge Office of Administrative Hearings